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: <200407081423.i68ENq5Z028984@cairo.anu.edu.au>
From: avalon at cairo.anu.edu.au (Darren Reed)
Subject: shell:windows command question

In some mail from Barry Fitzgerald, sie said:
> 
> Andreas Sandblad wrote:
> 
> >Did some quick search on Bugzilla and came up with the following:
> >
> >Mozilla allows external protocols as discussed in:
> >http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=167475
> >They seem to blacklist the following external protocol handlers:
> >(patch http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=102263&action=view)
> >hcp, vbscript, javascript, ms-help, vnd.ms.radio
> >
> >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.

Darren