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: <200507240431.FAA00572@simpson.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 05:31:21 +0100
From: Duncan Simpson <dps@...pson.demon.co.uk>
To: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: On classifying attacks

Nobody has brought this up, so perhaps I should. The problem most
clasiffication schemes discussed are hitting is that security holes are
transitive: remote arbitary code execution+local root exploit=remote root
exploit.

If the exploit code is running on your box then any exploits it peforms are
probably local, even if the attack code is launched by a remote exploit. A
description of a beast as composition of seperate remote and local exploits
would allow a simple remote/local distinction to apply (where "local" means
requiring the code to executed on the attacked box).

Whether trojans count as exploits per se or not is harder--most trojans and
other malware involve authorised users explicitly running a program and that
program doing authorised things. The activity being undesirable activity the
victim did not intend does not change that fact.

As far "malicious data that the victim must explicitly execute" I think such a
word already exists: malware (or trojan, if the appropriate disguise applies).
The success rate of persuading users to run such code is distressingly high.
-- 
Duncan (-:
"software industry, the: unique industry where selling substandard goods is
legal and you can charge extra for fixing the problems."