BugTraq
On classifying attacks Jul 15 2005 02:39AM
Derek Martin (code pizzashack org) (3 replies)
Re: On classifying attacks Jul 15 2005 11:40PM
James Longstreet (jlongs2 uic edu)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Jul 14, 2005, at 9:39 PM, Derek Martin wrote:

> This kind of attack has a name already: it is a trojan horse.
<snip>
> But is this a remote exploit?

No, it's not an exploit at all. Systems are not vulnerable to it
unless a local user runs an executable. The only thing it exploits
is trust of email (or similar vector).

Your example involving BIND is a good example of a true remote
exploit. A local exploit is typically categorized as one that
requires permissions on the system to begin with, and is used to gain
elevated permissions (such as exploiting a setuid program, or causing
root to write files through symlink race conditions).

This leaves one significant class of vulnerabilities, however. Let's
imagine for a moment that there is a buffer overflow in libjpeg that
allows an attacker to create a malicious JPEG which can cause any
program using libjpeg to execute arbitrary code. This should be
classified as a remote vulnerability. Users should be able to trust
that opening a JPEG file will only cause certain code to run, namely
decoding and displaying that JPEG.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFC2El6TYcj5d9bqjoRAsMcAKCKXn5l/B7WH4B49JIidvCXz3utRgCgxIBo
xXQ3xMVvvTAZZtz7jXXd12o=
=EhoG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ reply ]
Re: On classifying attacks Jul 15 2005 11:22PM
Indigo Haze (hazer chipshot net)
RE: On classifying attacks Jul 15 2005 03:58PM
Bryan McAninch (bryan mcaninch org)


 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2010, SecurityFocus