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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:13:09 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Rohit Patnaik <quanticle@...il.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: When is it valid to claim that a
	vulnerability leads to a remote attack?

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:32:49 CDT, Rohit Patnaik said:
> Well, why are you relying on Thierry's clock to date your message?
> Your e-mail client should use your local clock/mail server clock to
> timestamp messages.

Hint: your e-mail client *can't* timestamp this message, because it has
no *clue* when I hit send on this message.  Consider that you can't even
trust the timestamp on the first Received: header, because I could very
well have composed the mail and hit send while offline, and it got posted
to a server once I had network connectivity again.

The  sending MUA is responsible for this, but often an end-user MUA will fail
to add a Date: header and the fixup is done at the first mail server,

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/