full-disclosure - shell:windows command question

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: <40ED5A06.3070203@sdf.lonestar.org>
From: bkfsec at sdf.lonestar.org (Barry Fitzgerald)
Subject: shell:windows command question

Darren Reed wrote:

>>>A simple solution would be to add the shell protocol to this list.
>>>Personally I think a secure blacklist is hard to maintain as new
>>>dangerous external protocols could be invented by third-parties leaving
>>>Mozilla vulnerable again.
>>>      
>>>
>>Completely agreed.
>>
>>There should be a whitelist, not a blacklist... a safe protocols list.
>>    
>>
>
>And what would happen?
>
>Nobody would configure anything but those.
>
>And what would happen next?
>
>People would find ways to put their "new stuff" inside the "safe ones".
>
>Kind of like how "http" is declared safe (but is it really??) and so
>every man and their dog tunnels their proprietary stuff through that
>because it'll go through firewalls.
>
>  
>

And you're suggesting that allowing local protocols to run local code 
per the background call of a website is better?

             -Barry