bugtraq - Re: [Full-disclosure] VML Exploit vs. AV/IPS/IDS signatures

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 09:33:52 +0530
From: SanjayR <sanjayr@...oto.com>
To: "Pukhraj Singh" <pukhraj.singh@...il.com>,
	avivra <avivra@...il.com>
Cc: karmic_nirvana@...oo.com, EArsal@...hdata.de,
	full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk, bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] VML Exploit vs. AV/IPS/IDS signatures

Hi Aviv/Pukhraj & others:
As a security professional and researchers, our aim is to provide 
more in-depth information on intrusion (security) aspects, for 
example, some virus out-break, new windows vulnerability etc. Aviv is 
right by saying that signatures should match the vulnerability, not 
the exploits. Signature writing is a very responsible task and, of 
course, technical too. But unfortunately, there are not many people, 
who have required knowledge ( i m talking in context to india). but 
companies need people with the requirement of writing signatures. So, 
in this process, so called security professional start looking at 
exploits and write signatures (just to mention, I have seen few snort 
signatures that match "Shellcode part"!!!) . As Pukharaj mentioned 
that there are not many variants found in the wild, such signatures 
work and company and hired-security-professionals are happy. I have 
heard ( I am not sure whether it is really true) that few products (I 
don't even know the name!!) are simply dependent on open sources 
(like Snort or bleeding snort or nessus!!!!) for signatures. To 
overcome this (pathetic) situation, the solution, being suggested by 
Pukhraj makes sense i.e. collect as much exploits as possible and 
then try to analyze them and write signature. Here I want to add one 
thing that once we have a number of exploits, we should, at least 
now, try to understand the vulnerability based on the information 
present in all the exploits and try to come out with a common 
signature (or a common set of signatures).

regards
-Sanjay

At 11:07 AM 9/28/2006, Pukhraj Singh wrote:
>And you tell me how many of these variants you will actually find in
>the wild. Won't be a significant number I bet.
>
>Cheers!
>Pukhraj
>
>On 9/27/06, avivra <avivra@...il.com> wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>> > i.e. I can't afford to buy "specialized" security tools/devices for
>> > "speclialized" attacks unless my company relies heavily on web/content
>> > services.
>>
>>So, you will buy "specialized" security tools like firewall or
>>Anti-Virus, but not web content filtering tool?
>>
>> > In our company, we established a information-sharing
>> > network with other security companies. So the real-time exploit-facing
>> > signatures were then subjected to live traffic, honeypots and countless
>> > variants; They seemed to work out pretty well.
>>
>>I would like to see how your real-time signatures get updated with the
>>randomization implemented in the new VML metasploit module. Your
>>"countless" exploit variants will become really innumerable.
>>
>>The problem is that the signatures are written for the exploit, and
>>not for the vulnerability.
>>
>>-- Aviv.
>

Sanjay Rawat
Security Research Engineer
INTOTO Software (India) Private Limited
Uma Plaza, Nagarjuna Hills
PunjaGutta,Hyderabad 500082 | India
Office: + 91 40 23358927/28 Extn 424
Website : www.intoto.com
Homepage: http://sanjay-rawat.tripod.com
Computer Security: A little delay to break into your network.
                                                                         -- DSR