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

Message-ID: <42EF21F8.3030404@gentoo.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:34:16 +0200
From: Thierry Carrez <koon@...too.org>
To: Forte Systems - Iosif Peterfi <toto@...tesys.ro>
Cc: 'Crispin Cowan' <crispin@...ell.com>,
	'Technica Forensis' <forensis.technica@...il.com>,
	"'Black, Michael'" <black@...excorp.com>,
	'James Longstreet' <jlongs2@....edu>,
	'Derek Martin' <code@...zashack.org>, bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: On classifying attacks


Forte Systems - Iosif Peterfi wrote:

> Ok, so let's split them like this:
> 
> 1. Simple
>   1.1 Remote
>   1.2 Local
> 2. Compound
>   2.1 Social engineered
>   2.2 Technical
>   2.3 Local
> 
> [...]
> Does this makes sense to anyone ?!

I use "Active" instead of "Simple" and "Passive" instead of "Compound",
but it's globally the same. "Compound"/"Passive" require the attacker to
wait for something else to happen. That leaves me with:

Remote Active
Local Active
Remote Passive (Social engineered)
Remote Passive (Technical)
Local Passive

-- 
Koon