full-disclosure - Re: Month of ActiveX Bug

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

Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 12:45:24 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Larry Seltzer <Larry@...ryseltzer.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk, bugtraq@...security.net
Subject: Re: Month of ActiveX Bug

On Tue, 01 May 2007 12:24:47 EDT, Larry Seltzer said:
> >>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.   
> 
> Most often? How do you know that?

Given the number of programs I've filed "Version XYZ segfaults under conditions
A, B, and C" bug reports, compared to the number of things that were obviously
exploitable, I have to conclude that either I'm a lot worse than Joe Programmer
at identifying what's exploitable, or that a lot of *other* programmers are
filing "Version XYZ segfaults" bug reports without understanding if they're
exploitable - and quite often the segfault gets *fixed* as "just a segfault"
rather than as a security-level bug.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/