|
Incidents
Possible Mail server compromise ? Feb 04 2008 06:28PM Faas M. Mathiasen (faas m mathiasen googlemail com) (3 replies) Re: Possible Mail server compromise ? Feb 12 2008 11:41PM Faas M. Mathiasen (faas m mathiasen googlemail com) (3 replies) Re: Possible Mail server compromise ? Feb 18 2008 07:19PM Faas M. Mathiasen (faas m mathiasen googlemail com) (2 replies) Re: Possible Mail server compromise ? Feb 20 2008 02:43AM Eduardo Tongson (propolice gmail com) (1 replies) Re: Possible Mail server compromise ? Feb 20 2008 07:33PM Faas M. Mathiasen (faas m mathiasen googlemail com) (1 replies) Re: Possible Mail server compromise ? Feb 19 2008 05:35PM Bob Toxen (vger verysecurelinux com) (2 replies) Re: Possible Mail server compromise ? Feb 20 2008 02:14AM Jon Oberheide (jon oberheide org) (1 replies) Re: Possible Mail server compromise ? Feb 20 2008 05:11PM Valdis Kletnieks vt edu (1 replies) Re: Possible Mail server compromise ? Feb 20 2008 07:25PM Faas M. Mathiasen (faas m mathiasen googlemail com) (1 replies) Re: Possible Mail server compromise ? Feb 19 2008 06:46PM Faas M. Mathiasen (faas m mathiasen googlemail com) (3 replies) Re: Possible Mail server compromise ? Feb 20 2008 02:48PM Eygene Ryabinkin (rea-sec codelabs ru) (2 replies) Re: Possible Mail server compromise ? Feb 20 2008 10:59PM Valdis Kletnieks vt edu (1 replies) Re: Possible Mail server compromise ? Feb 21 2008 10:31AM Faas M. Mathiasen (faas m mathiasen googlemail com) (1 replies) Re: Possible Mail server compromise ? Feb 20 2008 07:10PM Faas M. Mathiasen (faas m mathiasen googlemail com) Re: Possible Mail server compromise ? Feb 20 2008 07:05AM Bob Toxen (vger VerySecureLinux com) (1 replies) Re: Possible Mail server compromise ? Feb 20 2008 07:25PM Faas M. Mathiasen (faas m mathiasen googlemail com) Re: Possible Mail server compromise ? Feb 04 2008 07:05PM Jon R. Kibler (Jon Kibler aset com) (1 replies) Re: Possible Mail server compromise ? Feb 04 2008 09:39PM Tony Maupin (tony themaupins com) (1 replies) Re: Possible Mail server compromise ? Feb 04 2008 09:57PM Faas M. Mathiasen (faas m mathiasen googlemail com) (1 replies) |
|
Privacy Statement |
> scanner scanning code in a VM, when the av scanner scans the code, the
> code is not executed and cannot decide whether it is inside a VM =)
Wrong. This would be true only if the AV didn't have the parsing bug in
the first place. If the AV is buggy and allows some form of arbitrary code
execution, the attacker -does- have the code executed inside the VM; and
nothing stands in his way of detecting whether it's a real machine or not.
If, on the other hand, the AV was not vulnerable... then, what would be
the gain of running it inside a VM? :-)
Peter
--
[Name] Peter Kosinar [Quote] 2B | ~2B = exp(i*PI) [ICQ] 134813278
[ reply ]