On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 05:14:22PM -0600, Jonathan T Rockway wrote:
> Two points.
>
> Regarding local versus remote, look at it this way: You have a 100%
> secure system. Then you install NASM. Now a user FROM THE NETWORK can
> send you some tainted assembly code for you to assemble and he can
> compromise your account. That is why it is considered remote. Local

And so we have a distinction without meaning.

I could take a machine with no external connectivity beyond a single
keyboard and monitor and by typing in a listing from a piece of paper
use a command to reformat the system and lose all data. Remote exploit?
By your usage of the term it is.

In your example, a local user MUST take action in order to perform
the exploit, therefore the exploit is local. Your "FROM THE NETWORK"
is meaningless; it could be sent on floppy or printout or via psychic
rays and get the same result.

> Now in regards to full disclosure, I think you should all be happy that we
> bothered to tell you all about these exploits. We could have selfishly

And thus years of discussion on this, and other, lists about responsibility
and concern goes out of the window. But that's a matter between you and
your conscience. Be happy!

--

rgds
Stephen

[ reply ]