full-disclosure - Re: Insect Pro - Advisory 2011 0428 - Zero Day - Heap Buffer Overflow in xMatters APClient

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:50:37 +1000
From: "-= Glowing Doom =-" <secn3t@...il.com>
To: Mario Vilas <mvilas@...il.com>, full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Insect Pro - Advisory 2011 0428 - Zero Day -
 Heap Buffer Overflow in xMatters APClient

Well... I am only saying, this place is NOT a place where 'web fuzzing'
should be the main topic of interest, specially when it is related to
software wich costs money and does not even have any trial..
It also, produced a false, on many occassions.
Acutenix consultant would do this, and guess what, get a cracked copy, and
they STILL let ya be a consultant!!
neat huh??
Now with this and Insect... you cannot do any ill.. your hard working
product, doesnt even scan right, and there is no free version... there is
only 'email' ones as ive seen, so what kinda shit is that, posting to grok
??? eh ???
Im with the others... the tests show the truth, truth is, the product
stinks, even when given the second glance.
Your peers vote i think, against this app...and, unless you maybe fix it,
and, even use some open src tosdo so (maybe learn something about 'opening')
the product, and more people will be happy to debug for you.. but alone,
your , yes..an insect waiting to be squashed :P lol...pardon my fracoise'
.
xd

On 29 April 2011 13:43, Mario Vilas <mvilas@...il.com> wrote:

> Precisely. The poc triggers the bug by passing a very long command line
> argument, so it's assumed the attacker already has executed code. The only
> way this is exploitable is if the binary has suid (then the attacker can
> elevate privileges) or the command can be executed remotely (and the
> attacker additionaly cannot execute any other commands, but can mysteriously
> control the arguments). Unless either scenario is researched (and nothing in
> the advisory tells me so) I call bullshit.
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 6:09 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:40:22 -0300, Mario Vilas said:
>>
>> > Is the suid bit set on that binary? Otherwise, unless I'm missing
>> something
>> > it doesn't seem to be exploitable by an attacker...
>>
>> Who cares?  You got code executed on the remote box, that's the *hard*
>> part.
>> Use that to inject a callback shell or something, use *that* to get
>> yourself a shell
>> prompt.  At that point, download something else that exploits you to root
>> - if
>> you even *need* to, as quite often the Good Stuff is readable by non-root
>> users.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> “There's a reason we separate military and the police: one fights the enemy
> of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military
> becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.”
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

Content of type "text/html" 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/