RE: New article on SecurityFocus
- From: "Brady McClenon" <BMcClenon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 12:14:43 -0500
See inline.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: matthew patton [mailto:pattonme@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 3:33 PM
> To: focus-ms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: New article on SecurityFocus
>
> --- Brady McClenon <BMcClenon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > And, is the server hosting the forum
> > truly infected/compromised?
>
> well, at least it's untrustworthy through no fault of it's own. If I
> wanted to 'own' a lot of boxes I would indeed put a bad WMF/JPG up as
> my avatar. Nobody would even think that they had a problem.
I would argue that any server that allows web users to upload content
should be considered untrustworthy to begin with.
>
> > It
> > only indexes what is ALREADY on your hard drive. How did it get
> > there to begin with?!?
>
> How about wget running on a DOS box?
That's a highly likely scenario. You truly think that many people,
especially the "unknowing" use wget? Especially the same folk that run
Google desktop on their pc? Plus a DOS box is not susceptible to the
WMF exploit anyway.
>
> > Obviously the user interacted with it at some point in
> > the past in order to put it there.
>
> er, see above.
>
> I guess my earlier response didn't go to the list. The WMF exploit is
> another nifty way to own a box after exploiting another configuration
> problem. My webservers have logs in them with people trying to use PHP
> bugs to download malicious WMF TO my webserver and execute them there
> and thus try to own my webserver. Doesn't work too hot when the OS is
> Linux, buy hey.
I've not seen much that would lead me to believe that an IIS server
responding to a get request would infect the windows server either.
It's an image rendering exploit. The web server wouldn't be rendering
the image.
>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> Yahoo! DSL - Something to write home about.
> Just $16.99/mo. or less.
> dsl.yahoo.com
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Prev by Date: RE: New article on SecurityFocus
- Next by Date: RE: New article on SecurityFocus
- Previous by thread: RE: New article on SecurityFocus
- Next by thread: RE: New article on SecurityFocus
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|