Security Basics mailing list archives
RE: FUD - was FAX a virus
From: "Craig Wright" <cwright () bdosyd com au>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:08:24 +1100
Sorry, wrong. This does not apply. As I stated, even with the best white noise based error corrections, you can not send a binary as a fax. You are assuming a binary input. This is the requirement you have decided to ignore in the paper that you have pointed us to. The input used to overflow a binary (in this case jpeg) can not be delived in a fax transmission. The attack is interactive (I suggest that you read the CERT paper on the issue - I will not attach it as CERT has a search function). Fax as I did state and as seems to be missed is non-interactive. Even in scanning the image, the attack you have mention is a crafted jpeg designed to overflow the GDI. It is not an image in itself. Please understand this distincion. It is a crafted binary. A scanned image is created by the system and not altered after this event. Please try again. Chin forward. Eyes closed. Waiting... Craig PS - you are trying to imply that fuzzing is a valid attack. http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-jp-05/bh-jp-05-sutton-greene.pd f The fuzzing attack is not valid if you read the details and not a quick googlised version of the alert you may have discovered this yourself. -----Original Message----- From: wesleymcgrew () gmail com [mailto:wesleymcgrew () gmail com] On Behalf Of Robert Wesley McGrew Sent: Wednesday, 7 March 2007 8:48 AM To: Craig Wright Cc: TheGesus; security-basics () securityfocus com; alcides.hercules () gmail com; Scott.Ramsdell () cellnet com Subject: Re: FUD - was FAX a virus On 3/6/07, Craig Wright <cwright () bdosyd com au> wrote:
With email you attach a binary. Please I would love to know how to attach a binary executable to a scanned image?
Like this: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS04-028.mspx Never put too much trust in how you're parsing input. -- Robert Wesley McGrew http://mcgrewsecurity.com Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation in respect of matters arising within those States and Territories of Australia where such legislation exists. DISCLAIMER The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use or disclose the information. If you have received this email in error, please inform us promptly by reply email or by telephoning +61 2 9286 5555. Please delete the email and destroy any printed copy. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. You may not rely on this message as advice unless it has been electronically signed by a Partner of BDO or it is subsequently confirmed by letter or fax signed by a Partner of BDO. BDO accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its attachments due to viruses, interference, interception, corruption or unauthorised access.
Current thread:
- RE: FUD - was FAX a virus, (continued)
- RE: FUD - was FAX a virus Craig Wright (Mar 06)
- RE: FUD - was FAX a virus Scott Ramsdell (Mar 06)
- RE: FUD - was FAX a virus Scott Ramsdell (Mar 06)
- Re: FUD - was FAX a virus TheGesus (Mar 06)
- RE: FUD - was FAX a virus Craig Wright (Mar 06)
- RE: FUD - was FAX a virus Craig Wright (Mar 06)
- Re: FUD - was FAX a virus Robert Wesley McGrew (Mar 07)
- RE: FUD - was FAX a virus Peter Denyer (Mar 07)
- Re: FUD - was FAX a virus Robert Wesley McGrew (Mar 07)
- RE: FUD - was FAX a virus Bob Radvanovsky (Mar 06)
- RE: FUD - was FAX a virus Craig Wright (Mar 07)
- RE: FUD - was FAX a virus Craig Wright (Mar 07)
- Re: FUD - was FAX a virus Robert Wesley McGrew (Mar 07)
- Re: RE: FUD - was FAX a virus krymson (Mar 07)
- RE: RE: FUD - was FAX a virus Craig Wright (Mar 07)
