http://eeyeresearch.typepad.com/blog/
http://research.eeye.com/html/alerts/zeroday/index.html
"If something is reported as a non-exploitable bug, we'll make sure to
exhaust the flaw for exploitability, as we have shown with the ASX Playlist
and the ADODB.Connection ActiveX zero-day vulnerabilities."
Or.. FUD?
1.) Adobe ActiveX
http://research.eeye.com/html/alerts/zeroday/20061128.html
"Although there was no supplied proof of concept for these vulnerabilities,
releasing the method names as well as the fact that they are 'memory
corruption' errors and 'could be exploited by attackers to take complete
control of an affected system' without a vendor-supplied patch will put many
Adobe users at risk."
And..
"Remote Code Execution:
Yes"
Now wait a second, I thought that you guys were going to "make sure to
exhaust the flaw for exploitability"? Did you actually try this out that you
can say Remote Code Execution is possible?
2.) ASX Playlist
http://research.eeye.com/html/alerts/zeroday/20061122.html
Now this is fun.
"Severity:
High
Remote Code Execution:
Yes"
"As a result, a two- or four-byte heap overflow is possible if the "REF
HREF" URL features a protocol shorter than three characters (the length of
"mms")."
Ok. But wait, what's this sentence doing here:
"Exploitability due to the corruption of the adjacent heap block's header
has not yet been demonstrated but is assumed likely."
So... you ASSUMED that it is likely, even though you can only have up to a
4-byte overwrite which does not overwrite the needed pointers in order to
actually exploit this, yet you say "Yes" in Remote Code Execution?
trippin-out,
"noodles for long life!"
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Received on Dec 05 2006
Intro
