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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1121790279.1298.123.camel@localhost>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:24:39 -0500
From: "Dustin D. Trammell" <dtrammell@...adel.com>
To: "Crispin Cowan" <crispin@...ell.com>
Cc: "James Longstreet" <jlongs2@....edu>,
	"Derek Martin" <code@...zashack.org>, <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>
Subject: Re: On classifying attacks

On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 01:58 -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote:
> Yet none of them capture the distinction Derek pointed out, and so
> perhaps we need a new term. We could say that attacks against connected
> programs like BIND and Gaim are "synchronous" and attacks that involve
> sending now for impact later such as e-mailed malware are "asynchronous".

I have seen the terms "active" and "passive" used quite frequently to
differentiate between these two conditions.

-- 
Dustin D. Trammell
Vulnerability Remediation Alchemist
Citadel Security Software, Inc.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)