Re: On classifying attacks
From: Duncan Simpson (dps_at_simpson.demon.co.uk)
To: email@example.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
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."