| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <3F974E83.9050509@ejovi.net> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:44:03 -0400 From: Ejovi Nuwere <ejovi@...vi.net> To: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...re.org> Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com, vuln-dev@...urityfocus.com Subject: Re: "Local" and "Remote" considered insufficient Steve, To summarize a vurnerability in one line is always difficult, more so when you are writting in a language other then your native tongue. Your ideas might help eleviate some of those troubles but not the core, in addition to language issues, most security researchers are simply poor writers. All of the complexities you detailed are very real, that is why there needs to be a simplified terminology. While Local and Remote alone are clearly not enough, Local, Remote, Remote Level 1, Remote Beta and Remote Delta will not help either. The idea of Local, Remote, and Remote Authenticated sounds nice and I would love to see more researchers adhere to this phrasing or something similar to the risk catagories vurnerability scanners use. Low, Medium and High, three classifications, then let the end user sort them out. Now only if we knew someone at MITRE that could make this happen... ejovi > So, to echo Florian's comments, "local" and "remote" is not sufficient > in fully evaluating the severity of a vulnerability in a particular > environment. > > - Steve > > P.S. Credits to Adam Shostack and Scott Blake for initially educating > me about the role of authentication in "local" vs. "remote" > terminology. >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists