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: <105989370407121416e19b889@mail.gmail.com>
From: stilist at gmail.com (Jordan Cole (stilist))
Subject: Firefox 0.92 DoS via TinyBMP

> This is precisely the point that almost everyone is missing
> completely (but still clamoring "it works on X, it doesn't work on
> Y"), and that Sapheriel pinpointed: the core problem lies in the
> Windows .bmp implementation.
> 
> So, I wonder aloud, what is the purpose of publishing 'advisories'
> that misattribute this flaw to IE [1] or Firefox or any of the other
> hundreds or thousands of programs that use it and can be DoSed as a
> result?

Admittedly; but here's the question: if it's all the fault of Windows
.bmp implementation, or the fact that it's about a gig of data, why
are certain browsers (like mine) not vulnerable to it? I'm going to
the same page as anyone else...

-- 

[stlst]


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ