full-disclosure - RE: remote kernel exploits?

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]

Message-ID: <0H2E00GT1F292P@smtp1.clear.net.nz>
From: nick at virus-l.demon.co.uk (Nick FitzGerald)
Subject: RE: remote kernel exploits?

> Personally I could really care less about "0-day exploits". There are a
> thousand ways to penetrate a machine that are more effective then
> relying on finding that one obscure piece of code. Why doesn't anyone
> ever discuss interception, people seem to bent on the latest
> vulnerability.  Then again what do I know. Maybe it IS all about
> "0-day".

Technologists, not surprisingly, tend to focus on problems that can 
be fixed by tweaking the technology.  Social engineering and many of 
the useful/successful interception methods of "attack" are not 
particularly solvable by technologists (the ethics of human NDA 
research tend to "get in the way" here...   8-) ).

As the people on this list are in some sense mainly technologists, 
the bias you point out in the concerns discussed here is quite
understandable.  You are, of course, right that there are many 
low-tech/no-tech attack methodologies but the people on lists such as 
this are not the people who will "fix" them, so they're not likely to 
get as much air-time here.

Regards,

Nick FitzGerald