full-disclosure - Re: on xss and its technical merit

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: <e9d9d4020711041607n525e0910i2dbab9d840befcc2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 18:07:17 -0600
From: reepex <reepex@...il.com>
To: "pdp (architect)" <pdp.gnucitizen@...glemail.com>, 
	full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: on xss and its technical merit

On Nov 4, 2007 4:43 PM, pdp (architect) <pdp.gnucitizen@...glemail.com>
wrote:

> >
> > lets say 10000 servers are running a vuln ftpd and another 10000 are
> running
> > the same open source web app. Which would you rather have the explot
> for?
> > also which would be more practical to attack? assuming you have the same
> > system and a good exploit you could get all the 10000 ftpds, while the
> xss
> > on 10000 msg boards would require 10000 users to view the page you
> attacked.
> >
>
> well I will go for the 10000 ftpds in general. However, it really
> depends on what I am doing. As I said, these FTPDs may give you access
> to the system but probably not access to the data which to me is a lot
> more interesting. In this case 10000 XSS sounds a lot more valuable.
>

  Which 'data' are you talking about? the servers info (in this case the
server running the ftpd daemon) or the data/personal machines of the users
of the ftpd?

  I would rather have control of the ftpd then simply backdoor the daemon to
work on indivivual users, just as I would rather control on the web server
itself rather than any pre-exsiting xss bugs.

again the whole point is that you do not need xss ever if you have client
side exploits or access to the server itself.



> There are XSS script kiddies as well Buffer Overflow script kiddies.
> Just because you can find XSS does not mean that you've done something
> amazing and extraordinary. It takes skills and a lot of effort to make
> something out of it. But as I said before, open your mind. There are
> endless potentials when it comes to XSS.
>

yes and i guess bad for you is that the only xss you really see posted (fd,
milw0rm, security focus) is people posting <script>alert('hi')</script>



>
> BTW, it does look like an achievement when you find a XSS inside an
> application that 1000 more people play with (look for similar bugs) on
> a daily basis. XSS in some small apps are stupid. XSS on the default
> Google Search Interface is as valuable as remotely exploitable buffer
> overflow for Linux 2.6.x kernels (distribution independent).
>
>
Again i think if you are attacking the users of a site instead of the site
itself this is acceptable but your attacks could become much more hazardous
if you owned the google server itself (maybe a stretch in the case of
google) and added whatever code you wanted to the front page/ or embedded
your nice browser exploit in the page. either of these ways seems much more
valuable then xssing people who are signed in and visited your page.

also (unless im missing) something in another email you mentioned like 15
different kinds of xss which I am sure are all interesting in their own way
but the most you can get out of them is simple browser games.

Content of type "text/html" 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/