Re: On classifying attacks

From: Duncan Simpson (dps_at_simpson.demon.co.uk)
Date: 07/24/05

  • Next message: Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen: "[ GLSA 200508-05 ] Heartbeat: Insecure temporary file creation"
    To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com
    Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 05:31:21 +0100
    
    

    Nobody has brought this up, so perhaps I should. The problem most
    clasiffication schemes discussed are hitting is that security holes are
    transitive: remote arbitary code execution+local root exploit=remote root
    exploit.

    If the exploit code is running on your box then any exploits it peforms are
    probably local, even if the attack code is launched by a remote exploit. A
    description of a beast as composition of seperate remote and local exploits
    would allow a simple remote/local distinction to apply (where "local" means
    requiring the code to executed on the attacked box).

    Whether trojans count as exploits per se or not is harder--most trojans and
    other malware involve authorised users explicitly running a program and that
    program doing authorised things. The activity being undesirable activity the
    victim did not intend does not change that fact.

    As far "malicious data that the victim must explicitly execute" I think such a
    word already exists: malware (or trojan, if the appropriate disguise applies).
    The success rate of persuading users to run such code is distressingly high.

    -- 
    Duncan (-:
    "software industry, the: unique industry where selling substandard goods is
    legal and you can charge extra for fixing the problems."
    

  • Next message: Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen: "[ GLSA 200508-05 ] Heartbeat: Insecure temporary file creation"