full-disclosure - How T-Mobil's network was compromised

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: <1108829671.735.8.camel@localhost>
From: frank at knobbe.us (Frank Knobbe)
Subject: How T-Mobil's network was compromised

On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 16:12 +0200, Willem Koenings wrote:
> - user input is correctly sanitized and there is no flaw
> - use input is not correctly sanitized and there is a flaw

I've seen cases where user input is correctly sanitized, but there was a
flaw.

If you tested your whole parameter set and don't find a flaw, it doesn't
mean that none exists. There could be a flaw that you haven't found with
your set of tests. That's what the quote is eluding to. You can say for
sure that there is a flaw, but you can not say for sure that there is
not one. You can't test for the absence.

> So above saying is not always completly true. But you can't use
> testing to find something you don't know at this exact moment -
> unknown flaws.

Well, that's exactly the point of the quote :)

Cheers,
Frank

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20050219/c19e87d1/attachment.bin