full-disclosure - Re: 0day: PDF pwns Windows

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, 25 Sep 2007 15:26:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Steven Adair" <steven@...urityzone.org>
To: "North, Quinn" <QNorth@....com>
Cc: Chad Perrin <perrin@...theon.com>,
	"pdp " <pdp.gnucitizen@...glemail.com>,
	"Gadi.Evron" <ge@...uxbox.org>, casper.dik@....com,
	full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk,
	"Crispin.Cowan" <crispin@...ell.com>,
	"@slashmail.org"@lists.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: 0day: PDF pwns Windows

Nice, sounds almost exactly like what I said a few days ago.  Good to see
the bullet-proof wikipedia has my back.

Steven
www.securityzone.org


>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0day
>
>
> /thread
>
> --=Q=--
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk
> [mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of Jason
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 11:55 AM
> To: J. Oquendo
> Cc: Chad Perrin; pdp (architect); Gadi Evron; Casper.Dik@....COM;
> full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk; Crispin Cowan
> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] 0day: PDF pwns Windows
>
>
>
> J. Oquendo wrote:
>> Jason wrote:
>>
>>> You present a valid position but fall short of seeing the whole
>>> picture.
>>
>>> As an attacker, nation state or otherwise, my goal being to cripple
>>> communications, 0day is the way to go. Resource exhaustion takes
>>> resources, something the 0day can deprive the enemy of.
>>
>> Counterpoint... You're trying to shoot me down with 0day crap:
>>
>> You --> 0day attack --> My Infrastructure
>>
>> Me --> Botnet --> Your infrastructure
>
> Perhaps, if you can catch me everywhere I can be. The problem is that my
> attacks, using my 0day, are run from your infrastructure by my forward
> teams, long entrenched in your society.
>
> If I want to knock out your infrastructure to render it unusable I'm
> going to do it in a way that I can either
>
> - control when and how it goes down and makes it resistant to restore
> efforts (Exploiting vulns to gain control )
>
> - destroy it entirely causing you to expend massive resources to rebuild
> it
>
>>
>> Never having to consume any resources other than a point and click shoot
>> em up attack, I necessarily won't even have to use my own resources. So
>> shoot away as your network becomes saturated.
>>
>>> Knocking out infrastructure with attacks is a far more effective
>>> strategy. You can control it's timing, launch it with minimal
>>> resources,
>>> from anywhere, coordinate it, and be gone before it can be thwarted.
>>> The
>>> botnet would only serve as cover while the real attack happens.
>>
>> In a strategic war, most countries aim to eliminate supply points and
>> mission critical infrastructure as quickly as possible. In a
>> cyberwarfare situation me personally, I would aim to 1) disrupt/stop via
>> a coordinated attack whether its via a botnet or something perhaps along
>> the lines of a physical cut to a nation's fiber lines.
>>
>> 0day would only serve me afterwards to perhaps maintain covert states of
>> communication. Maybe inject disinformation through crapaganda. Imagine
>> an enemies entire website infrastructure showing tailored news... Would
>> truly serve a purpose AFTER the attack not during.
>
> You don't start that after the fact, you start it before, maintain it
> during, and follow through victory.
>
>>
>>> I am more inclined to believe that botnets in use today really only
>>> serve as cover, thuggish retribution, and extortion tools, not as
>>> effective tools of warfare. No real warfare threat would risk exposing
>>> themselves through the use of or construction of a botnet.
>>>
>>
>> Luckily for most companies and government, botnets aren't being used for
>> their full potential. And I don't mean potential as in they're a good
>> thing. I could think up a dozen cyberware scenarios in minutes that
>> would cripple countries and businesses. I believe countries, providers
>> and governments should at some point get the picture and perhaps create
>> guidelines to curtail the potential for havoc - imagine hospitals being
>> attacked and mission critical life saving technologies taken offline.
>>
>>
>
> The botnet still only serves as cover for this activity. It is a tool,
> like the rest, but not a primary weapon for use in active wide scale
> infrastructure dos. Taking out infrastructure on a wide scale using
> resource exhaustion requires too much resource.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/