bugtraq - eEye's Zero-Day Tracker Launch

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: <b879818c0612051303n2ffb81dah5bdf30ecfba92e95@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 22:03:18 +0100
From: "chinese soup" <noodle.mastah@...il.com>
To: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: eEye's Zero-Day Tracker Launch

http://eeyeresearch.typepad.com/blog/
http://research.eeye.com/html/alerts/zeroday/index.html

"If something is reported as a non-exploitable bug, we'll make sure to
exhaust the flaw for exploitability, as we have shown with the ASX
Playlist and the ADODB.Connection ActiveX zero-day vulnerabilities."
Or.. FUD?

1.) Adobe ActiveX
http://research.eeye.com/html/alerts/zeroday/20061128.html

"Although there was no supplied proof of concept for these
vulnerabilities, releasing the method names as well as the fact that
they are 'memory corruption' errors and 'could be exploited by
attackers to take complete control of an affected system' without a
vendor-supplied patch will put many Adobe users at risk."

And..

"Remote Code Execution:
Yes"

Now wait a second, I thought that you guys were going to "make sure to
exhaust the flaw for exploitability"? Did you actually try this out
that you can say Remote Code Execution is possible?

2.) ASX Playlist
http://research.eeye.com/html/alerts/zeroday/20061122.html

Now this is fun.

"Severity:
High

Remote Code Execution:
Yes"

"As a result, a two- or four-byte heap overflow is possible if the
"REF HREF" URL features a protocol shorter than three characters (the
length of "mms")."

Ok. But wait, what's this sentence doing here:
"Exploitability due to the corruption of the adjacent heap block's
header has not yet been demonstrated but is assumed likely."

So... you ASSUMED that it is likely, even though you can only have up
to a 4-byte overwrite which does not overwrite the needed pointers in
order to actually exploit this, yet you say "Yes" in Remote Code
Execution?

trippin-out,

"noodles for long life!"