[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <793956746.20091014141150@Zoller.lu>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:11:50 +0200
From: Thierry Zoller <Thierry@...ler.lu>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, Jonathan Leffler <jleffler@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: When is it valid to claim that a
vulnerability leads to a remote attack?
Hi Dan,
DK> There are a substantial number of file formats that are code-execution
DK> equivalent with no exploits necessary -- .exe, .com, .bat, etc. You thus
DK> can't say that an executed file must not execute code, because there's no
DK> way for the user to know whether a file on his desktop is an .exe or
DK> something else.
Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying but - Isn't the point in this
case is that running binary files mapped as executables is not
exploiting a vulnerability in a third party application ?
I understood that Jonathan was asking whether the exploitation of a file format
vulnerability in Product X can be categorized as remotely
exploitable - even though it is not exposed to the outside and one can only reach
arbitrary control by indirect means.
I think we can agree that yes, it is remotely exploitable and as such
should be categorized as "remote" in Risk/Impactt scoring systems ?
Does anybody disagree ? I'd be interested to hear your point of view.
DK> The key here is "escalation of privilege". At the point you're launching
DK> formats, the privilege has already been granted.
If you could dive into this a bit more as I can't follow you here. I
frankly don't know any Access control logic where running a format leads
to the escalation of a privilege, per se.
--
http://blog.zoller.lu
Thierry Zoller
_______________________________________________
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