Home page logo

bugtraq logo Bugtraq mailing list archives

Re: DJB's students release 44 *nix software vulnerability advisories
From: Antoine Martin <antoine () nagafix co uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:30:25 +0000

On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 14:34 -0600, milw0rm Inc. 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.

quote "for you to assemble"

Its a user error.  Your not remotely exploiting anything but the trust
from the user.
Although I agree with you that in the vast majority of cases this
exploit would require user interaction, there are corner cases where
this can be successfully exploited remotely:
* gentoo systems by compromising one of the master servers (or more
simply by hijacking the connection to one of the those servers) to serve
the malicious file - but in this case you probably don't really need
this exploit to compromise the system.
* other automated build systems (no generic name comes to mind) which
download the files they work on from other systems - which may not be
trusted to the point that grants a shell but just enough to provide
* compromising any open-source software's repository that already uses
nasm and placing the exploit file in the default build target - tough,
but not impossible (it has happened before and will happen again).

I guess this is just not "remotely expoitable" in the usual sense
(direct attack vector)



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]