
Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: [WEB SECURITY] Unicode Left/Right Pointing Double Angel Quotation Mark bypass?
From: "Arian J. Evans" <arian.evans () anachronic com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 16:42:57 -0700
response inline On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Thierry Zoller <Thierry () zoller lu> wrote:
The discussion of how many inputs are vulnerable is kind of ludicrous isn't it? As it nearly always boils down to the same set of impacts even if you have a trillion of inputs vulnerable, per domain.
Measuring inputs is very valuable. A 500 page report from a scanner or consultant listing 18,000 inputs all vulnerable to the same 2 types of XSS attacks is certainly not, which is what I think you were referring to. The number of identically vulnerable inputs by density and location in an application is itself a form of metadata: It gives you a strong indication whether or not you have a Conceptual/Design problem or a Particular/Implementation issue. Nobody in Black Box land has described this correctly yet that I have seen. The discussion quickly hits a slippery slope between issues of Omission vs. issues of Commission. Omission: In the broad case, where you find a type of syntax-attack vector like these everywhere in a piece of software (n+80%?) you can usually map that to a design omission or framework flaw. Commission: In the particular case where you find a type of syntax-attack vector like these in one specific location (/noobdev.aspx) or very small percentage of inputs (n-98%?) you can usually map this to a specifically committed implementation error or the use of a dangerous library for a specific function. The differences between these are important at a strategic level in terms of how to solve/avoid the problem going forward. Measuring "exploitable defects-to-inputs" is an effective way to measure, over time, as you create/update/deprecate your code: are you getting better or worse over time at Writing Secure Code? In this sense exploitability-per-input has definite measuring-stick value. There are certainly other ways to measure, but in a Black Box perspective of CRUD-over-time effect on your code, I think this is the best way we have today to measure what direction of overall exploitability your code is moving in. There are other tactical considerations but they are outside this discussion. --- Arian Evans _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Current thread:
- Re: [WEB SECURITY] Unicode Left/Right Pointing Double Angel Quotation Mark bypass? Arian J. Evans (Jun 04)
- Re: [WEB SECURITY] Unicode Left/Right Pointing Double Angel Quotation Mark bypass? Prasad Shenoy (Jun 04)
- Re: [WEB SECURITY] Unicode Left/Right Pointing Double Angel Quotation Mark bypass? Arian J. Evans (Jun 04)
- Re: [WEB SECURITY] Unicode Left/Right Pointing Double Angel Quotation Mark bypass? Thierry Zoller (Jun 05)
- Re: [WEB SECURITY] Re[2]: [WEB SECURITY] Unicode Left/Right Pointing Double Angel Quotation Mark bypass? Chris Weber (Jun 05)
- Re: [WEB SECURITY] Unicode Left/Right Pointing Double Angel Quotation Mark bypass? Arian J. Evans (Jun 06)
- Re: [WEB SECURITY] Unicode Left/Right Pointing Double Angel Quotation Mark bypass? Chris Weber (Jun 05)
- Re: [WEB SECURITY] Unicode Left/Right Pointing Double Angel Quotation Mark bypass? Arian J. Evans (Jun 04)
- Re: [WEB SECURITY] Unicode Left/Right Pointing Double Angel Quotation Mark bypass? Prasad Shenoy (Jun 04)
- Message not available
- Re: [WEB SECURITY] Unicode Left/Right Pointing Double Angel Quotation Mark bypass? Arian J. Evans (Jun 06)
- Re: [WEB SECURITY] Unicode Left/Right Pointing Double Angel Quotation Mark bypass? Chris Weber (Jun 07)
- Re: [WEB SECURITY] Unicode Left/Right Pointing Double Angel Quotation Mark bypass? Arian J. Evans (Jun 07)
- Re: [WEB SECURITY] Unicode Left/Right Pointing Double Angel Quotation Mark bypass? Arian J. Evans (Jun 06)