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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <200407081538.i68Fc3pD024531@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:
> 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?

I'm not suggesting anything other than what I said.

Darren