Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
From: James Matthews (nytrokissgmail.com)
Date: Tue May 01 2007 - 21:08:37 CDT
I think all in all That it should be considered!
On 5/1/07, Steven Adair <stevensecurityzone.org> wrote:
> I think a good share of the time when someone states that the DoS may
> "possibly" lead to remote code execution are making such a statement for a
> couple different reasons:
> 1) They found a DoS and truly have no idea whether or not it can cause
> remote code execution due to not having the knowledge/skills necessary to
> check for it and/or lack of time to make such a determination.
> 2) They have seen characteristics that would indicate that remote code
> execution is possible but have not quite been able to nail down a working
> exploit "should" one be possible.
> I do not think the evidence quickly available to us would bring us to
> conclude most DoS's end up resulting in remote code execution -- or even
> have the ability to. I would agree saying "often enough" would be better
> than "most."
> However, regardless of whether it results in remote code execution, I
> don't think a DoS should necessarily be discounted as frivolous or
> irrelevant. It might not rank up there with critical or high
> vulnerabilities, but it is a vulnerability nonetheless.
> > Ok 'most' is probably bad wording on my part how does 'often enough'
> > :).
> > "Buffer overflow in the png_decompress_chunk function in pngrutil.c in
> > libpng before 1.2.12 allows context-dependent attackers to cause a
> > denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code"
> > http://www.securityspace.com/smysecure/catid.html?id=57643
> > "Buffer overflow in efingerd 1.5 and earlier, and possibly up to 1.61,
> > allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly
> > execute arbitrary code via a finger request from an IP address with a
> > long hostname that is obtained via a reverse DNS lookup."
> > http://cve.mitre.org/board/archives/2003-03/msg00013.html
> > "A BrightStor ARCserve Backup contains four
> > vulnerabilities that can allow a remote attacker to cause a denial
> > of service or possibly execute arbitrary code."
> > http://packetstorm.linuxsecurity.com/0703-advisories/CAID-McAfee.txt
> > Note the use of 'possibly'. If it was possible then 'possibly' wouldn't
> > used.
> > I'm not going to debate the validity of the month of activex bugs
> > frankly I don't care, merely
> > that a DOS can turn out to be more and that at times either the
> > hasn't spent enough time on it, can't get the POC working, or lacks the
> > skill to fully understand the problem.
> > There have been multiple instances on the securityfocus lists throughout
> > the years where a DOS suddenly
> > became promoted to a remotely exploitable bug (i.e another person found
> > was actually exploitable). I'm not going
> > to find them and post them here, but a little googling can yield
> > results.
> > - Robert
> > http://www.cgisecurity.com/
> >> >>Consider that most often a bug filed as DOS can actually be
> >> exploitable, but the person who discovered it can't get the POC working
> >> or is even aware it is. While command execution is the ideal goal it
> >> doesn't mean other types of issues are *completely* worthless. =20
> >> Most often? How do you know that?
> >> Larry Seltzer
> >> eWEEK.com Security Center Editor
> >> http://security.eweek.com/
> >> http://blogs.eweek.com/cheap_hack/
> >> Contributing Editor, PC Magazine
> >> larryseltzerziffdavis.com=20
> > _______________________________________________
> > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/