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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 06:42:21 -0700
From: Crispin Cowan <crispin@...ell.com>
To: "Black, Michael" <black@...exCorp.com>
Cc: James Longstreet <jlongs2@....edu>,
	Derek Martin <code@...zashack.org>, bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: On classifying attacks


Black, Michael wrote:
>You might try re-using the rather large effort that went into the CERT
>taxonomy:
>http://www.cert.org/research/taxonomy_988667.pdf
>
>You'll note the complete lack of "local" and "remote" in the taxonomy.
>  
That pretty much tells me everything I need to know about whether I want
to use that taxonomy :)

>Remote exploit of Bind (causing "rm -r /*" to be executed):
>Attack:
>	Tool: User Command
>	Vulnerability: Design
>  
"Design"?!

>If you really want to stick with "remote" and "local" I think you can
>define them thusly:
>Remote -- control/access of resources occurs from outside the
>machine/network
>Local -- control/access of resources occurs on the local machine (i.e.
>no network connection required)
>  
Ok, but I had no trouble with those definitions in the first place, and
so far you have not captured the distinction Derek was asking about.

>Using this definition the email example is local and both bind examples
>are remote.
.. and any definition that classifies the e-mail example as "local" is
just broken.

Crispin
-- 
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.                      http://immunix.com/~crispin/
Director of Software Engineering, Novell  http://novell.com