| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200703110437.l2B4bP1A002546@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:37:25 -0500
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Paul Schmehl <pauls@...allas.edu>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Is OWASP vulnerable ??
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:33:21 CST, Paul Schmehl said:
> In addition to true and
> > false, try 3, 0 , -37, "Cabbage", and maybe "true) and
> > (my_evil_function()))". See if you can force it to throw a syntax error
> > that creates a 404 page or something that contains *other* input you
> > control, especially if it finds its way to an eval().
> Even if this is true, all you would have then is an information disclosure
> that might lead to some other compromise path. But all the code is
> already available to the attacker, so he/she ought to be able to read the
> code and find the exploitable condition without doing all that extra work.
Paul, if you find a way to get something to execute an eval() with data that
you control, and all you can get out of that is an information disclosure,
you *really* need to find a new line of work.
Yeah, a 404 page controlled by the server might just be too chatty and give
away info - but if you can control the input that creates the 404 page, it
gets more interesting...
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
_______________________________________________
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