bugtraq - Re: Six Step IE Remote Compromise Cache Attack

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]

Message-ID: <3FAFF8B8.9040903@rogers.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:44:40 -0500
From: Byron Sonne <blsonne@...ers.com>
To: Goetz Babin-Ebell <babin-ebell@...stcenter.de>,
	bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Six Step IE Remote Compromise Cache Attack

> But wrongly rejecting good input has no security implications.
> But wrongly accepting bad input has.

Are you sure about that? It's arguable that it's the outcome of the 
action that is more important than the content or value of the action 
itself (i.e. By action or admission of action allow an offence to be 
committed).

If I have backdoored a system, and I can have the system reject good 
input (i.e. the sysadmin issuing a command to remove the backdoor), then 
the system has continued to remain insecure as a result of rejecting 
good input.

That may be a contrived example, but this is a topic that bears being 
pedantic ;) so if a principle isn't true in all cases it isn't true at all.

-- 

	For good, return good. For evil, return justice.