[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <egisuf$o34$1@sea.gmane.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:52:12 +0100
From: "Dave \"No, not that one\" Korn" <davek_throwaway@...mail.com>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: pacsec hype security advisory: seven words
ofwarning about Flash player nine.
Dragos Ruiu wrote:
> "The new Flash player adds network functions!"
Hey, I can do it in three words!
Flash. Must. Die.
> and thus there are many ways to bypass the only-connect-back-upstream
> and port < 1024 limitations on the SWF applet Socket() class. A
Limiting ports to less than 1024 hasn't been any kind of security measure
since.. I dunno, forever really. Since there were more than two machines
connected to the internet. How can anyone in the 21st century think that
this is meaningful?
> The potential for network misuse possible in Flash just went up
> several orders of magnitude, and as the Adobe site triumphantly
> proclaims it's apparently in use at 97.3% of networked computers.
> I'll avoid some of the more exotic scenarios, lest they give
> anyone some bad ideas -
Distributed port scanning from a malicious webserver that gives every
client a slightly modified .swf with a different range of ip addresses to
scan?
Seriously, thanks for the warning. Once more, feeping creatureitis wins
out over sanity and security. Oh well.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists