full-disclosure - Re: newest category of security bugs considered elite ?

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]

Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 12:30:28 +1200
From: Nick FitzGerald <nick@...us-l.demon.co.uk>
To: "full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: newest category of security bugs considered
 elite ?

Dan Kaminsky wrote:

> I really like the hash length declaration bugs, where the client can  
> tell the server how many bytes of a hash need to be validated.  (Yep,  
> you just say "one byte is plenty")
> 
> SNMPv3 and XML-DSIG both fell to this, catastrophically.

I thought Georgi asked for the newest class of elite vulns?

Does (at least) ten years old count as new?

   http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms00-072.mspx

And against Win9x count as elite?   8-)

FWIW, MS00-072 was fairly widely exploited in the wild by at least the 
Opaserv (aka Opasoft) family of worms, though not until a couple (?) of 
years after the bulletin's release.

Regards,

Nick FitzGerald

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