Home page logo
/

bugtraq logo Bugtraq mailing list archives

Re: On classifying attacks
From: James Longstreet <jlongs2 () uic edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 18:40:42 -0500

-----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-----


  By Date           By Thread  

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