full-disclosure - When is it valid to claim that a vulnerability leads to a remote attack?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:16:01 -0700
From: Jonathan Leffler <jleffler@...ibm.com>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: When is it valid to claim that a vulnerability
	leads to a remote attack?

A reputable security defect reporting organization is claiming that a
Windows program is subject to a remote attack because:

* The vulnerable program (call it 'pqrminder') is registered as the
'handler' for files with a specific extension (call it '.pqr').
* If the user downloads a '.pqr' file (or is sent on in the mail and clicks
on it), then 'pqrminder' is invoked.
* If the file is malformed, then arbitrary code can be executed (buffer
overflow).

While recognizing that there is a bug here, that does not strike me as
being what is normally meant by a 'remote attack'.

--
Jonathan Leffler (jleffler@...ibm.com)
STSM, Informix Database Engineering, IBM Information Management
4400 N First St, San Jose, CA 95134-1257
Tel: +1 408-956-2436         Tieline: 475-2436
"I don't suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it!"
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/