full-disclosure - Re: verizon vs m$

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: <f374a3cad46573743627ec9a4452aef0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 21:05:26 -0500
From: Larry Seltzer <larry@...ryseltzer.com>
To: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <thor@...merofgod.com>,
	Georgi Guninski <guninski@...inski.com>, full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: verizon vs m$

I think the Intranet zone was Medium in IE6 but of course there was no
Protected Mode there. Maybe that's where the confusion is from.

-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk
[mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of Thor
(Hammer of God)
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 8:50 PM
To: Georgi Guninski; full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] verizon vs m$

I don't understand how Dan arrived at "Researchers bypass Internet
Explorer Protected Mode" for the article title.  Protected Mode isn't
being bypassed at all - the "researchers that figured out a reliable way
to bypass the measure" apparently just noticed that Protected Mode is
disabled by default in the Local Intranet Zone.

Is this something you are concerned about?  This would obviously only be
exploitable by accessing sites on one's own intranet by specifically using
intranet nomenclature (and trusted sites, but the user has to add those).
Also, the article (or the researchers) are incorrect about the default
settings for the Intranet zone - it's Medium-low, not Medium.   If the
problem one is trying to fix is based on attackers compromising intranet
sites and then posting code for unpatched vulnerabilities that would still
end up only running in the user context, then you've got much bigger
problems, no?

I'm just wondering why you are brining attention to the article, or
really, why it was written in the first place.

t

-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk
[mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of Georgi
Guninski
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 1:26 PM
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: [Full-disclosure] verizon vs m$

in a world like this, verizon kills exploder bugs:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/03/protected_mode_bypass/
http://www.verizonbusiness.com/resources/whitepapers/wp_escapingmicrosoftp
rotectedmodeinternetexplorer_en_xg.pdf

the language doesn't seem passionate:
-----
Finally, Microsoft and other software vendors should clearly document
which features do and do not have associated security claims. Clearly
stating which features make security claims, and which do not, will allow
informed decisions to be made on IT security issues.
-----

lol

--
joro

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

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

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