full-disclosure - Re: adobe.com important subdomain SQL injection again!

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: <8CD6DFBCE7E9903-2F4-C011@web-mmc-m06.sysops.aol.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 20:24:39 -0500
From: John Jester <watermonk@...out.com>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk, victor_rigo@...oo.com
Subject: Re: adobe.com important subdomain SQL injection
	again!

 No real clue how Adobe will counter Flash 5. Perhaps they can use it as an opportunity to trim the beast down.

-----Original Message-----
From: Victor Rigo <victor_rigo@...oo.com>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Sent: Mon, Dec 20, 2010 12:56 am
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] adobe.com important subdomain SQL injection again!

Concurred. No file format is as obnoxious as SWF.

However, with the debut of HTML 5, we're finding that video is being offloaded to <video> and open codecs are being integrated into browsers. Further, HTML 5's media capabilities are making flash cumbersome.

Try disabling flash extension on Firefox and enjoy real internet.

Victor Rigo, CISSP
Independent Computer Security Consultant
Buenos Aires, AR
+5411-4316-1901

--- On Sun, 12/19/10, Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com> wrote:

From: Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] adobe.com important subdomain SQL injection again!
To: "Marsh Ray" <marsh@...endedsubset.com>
Cc: "Victor Rigo" <victor_rigo@...oo.com>, full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Date: Sunday, December 19, 2010, 9:25 PM

"Personally, I kind of like Flash. It gives me a single kill switch for
90% of the useless blinking crap and popups on the internet. Flash is a
really appropriate name for exactly what I don't want to see on a web
page. I hope it remains the platform of choice for those who develop
such things." - Marsh Ray

I'll keep using that quote till I die...

On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Marsh Ray <marsh@...endedsubset.com> wrote:

On 12/18/2010 05:30 PM, Victor Rigo wrote:
> Let's see, flash is:
>
> - Cross-platform
> - Cross-architecture
> - Has it's own programming language
> - Is embedded on websites
> - Access to javascript to popup, local caches, etc.

Not on my machine?

> It's not ineptness, it's what you get when you right software that can
> actually do stuff.

Adobe comes from a time when you could write PC software without caring
about security. Yeah, it was a heck of a lot easier to write just about
anything back then because it was well and proper that anything could do
anything.

Nowdays, the first questions after "hey our software could do this" must
be "but should it do that? What else could someone leverage that new
capability to do? How does it combine with every other feature in our
app or even on the whole platform? What if somebody does it repeatedly
in a tight loop? With pathological inputs?" and so on. These questions
take a long time to answer.

So if a vendor is known for "letting app developers do more stuff" and
not also known for "letting users control what stuff gets done on their
own machines" then they are laggards, not leaders, in my view.

> If Java applets were still the hip thing, you'd see the same thing about
> that.

There's undoubtedly some truth to that. But at the same time, it doesn't
seem like a useful line of reasoning:

* It's still not an argument for using Flash.

* That Java plugins have had chronic security bugs doesn't mean that
Flash doesn't suck too.

* You seem to imply that you don't think that Adobe is likely to secure
Flash any time soon. You're not saying "Adobe will secure Flash in the
next patch and then it will be great." But you listed all the great
stuff it does, so I have to think you would have said something like
that if you believed it. You may be making Flash look worse than it is.

* It's basically an "appeal to futility" argument: no one could make a
development platform and browser plugin that is significantly more
secure (or does a better job of managing the security vs. "doing stuff"
trade off) so therefore we should accept the status quo. That's why it's
not useful: it gives no guidance on directions in which to improve.

Personally, I kind of like Flash. It gives me a single kill switch for
90% of the useless blinking crap and popups on the internet. Flash is a
really appropriate name for exactly what I don't want to see on a web
page. I hope it remains the platform of choice for those who develop
such things.

- Marsh

_______________________________________________
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/

=

Content of type "text/html" 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/