bugtraq - Re: On classifying attacks

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: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:41:54 +0200
From: Godwin Stewart <gstewart@...mcop.net>
To: Derek Martin <code@...zashack.org>
Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: On classifying attacks


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:40:29 -0400, Derek Martin <code@...zashack.org> wrote:

> It seems to me your statement can't be correct, because this is ALWAYS
> the case.  A local exploit requires that a local user run an
> executable.  A remote exploit requires that a local user run an
> executable, even if that is accomplished merely by booting the system.
> All exploits require running code, and code doesn't magically start
> itself...  Running code is required, because it is the very running
> code which is being exploited.

Maybe so, however with the case of the BIND attack, the vulnerability in
locally running code (named) is being exploited by a remote attacker via the
network.

In the case of an e-mail containing malicious code, the code being exploited
(parts of the Windows kernel or whatever) is being attacked by code running
locally - on the *same* machine. In this sense it can hardly qualify as a
"remote" exploit.

- -- 
G. Stewart - gstewart@...mcop.net

A lot of money is tainted.   'Taint yours and 'taint mine.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFC2ifiK5oiGLo9AcYRAswqAJ9lPxLOVO45WpnKxWEYva41HSbnrwCfdkGT
fEc+qbBBB4LKkzeR5bKMikg=
=yzAH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----