full-disclosure - Re: 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <09130A33C60C9C4982D35105CBABB2781EFD97EE@Exchange.hammerofgod.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 21:54:43 -0700
From: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <thor@...merofgod.com>
To: Thierry Zoller <Thierry@...ler.lu>, "full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk"
	<full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Cc: "Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu" <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
	Jonathan Leffler <jleffler@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: When is it valid to claim that
	a	vulnerability leads to a remote attack?

> 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.

Hey Thierry - I hope all is well...

I'm happy to include "user assisted remote exploitation" as a "remote" vulnerability in academic conversations, but I don't categorize it as "remote" when assessing overall risk to a particular threat in production environments.  Like everyone else, my TMs include impact and skill required to exploit a particular vulnerability; but they also include "likelihood of exploitation."   While that may sound like a wildcard metric, I quantify it by applying the internal controls in place that may mitigate a particular attack.  In "my" networks (networks I control, design, or consult for) most users couldn't execute [common] exploits even if they wanted to.  I won't bore you with the controls I deploy as I'm confident you are well aware of the options one has, but the fact they exist at all place "user assisted remote exploits" in a different category for me when assessing risk.  When the propensity for a vulnerability to be exploited lies in a particular user's response to any given
  trigger, as opposed to any authoritative in-place controls to mitigate exposure, then a model's relevant response options are greatly diminished (IMO).  

As such, I choose to categorize "remote" exploits as those that may be executed against a given host that is autonomously running a [vulnerable] service that can be connected to by some (any) other network client, device, or service for the purposes of ascertaining overall risk. 

t

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/