Ethical Hacking

Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package.
Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute

Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors.




Network Security Bugtraq
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Full-disclosure] 0day: PDF pwns Windows

Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] 0day: PDF pwns Windows
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:39:29 -0400
Crispin Cowan wrote:


This is a perfectly viable way to produce what amounts to Internet
munitions. The recent incident of Estonia Under *Russian Cyber Attack*?
<http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3678606> is an example
of such a network brush war in which possession of such an arsenal would
be very useful.

Crispin

One would presume that governments across the world would have their
shares of unpublished exploits but with all the incidences of government
networks being compromised, I don't believe this to be the case. What
happened in Estonia though was nothing more than a botnet attack on
their infrastructure
(http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199602023)
not an 0day attack.

0day's defined as "unpublished exploit" wouldn't do much in a
cyberwarfare theater as country against country as the purpose of such
warfare would LIKELY be to disconnect/disrupt communications. In the
cases of industrial/country vs. country espionage it might (likely) will
 be more effective for the long haul but in the short term, 0days will
be useless in this type of "cyberfight". Think about it logically, you
want to "disrupt" country X's communications, not tap them. You'd want
to make sure their physical army had no mechanism to communicate. You'd
want to make sure financially you would cripple them. Not worry about
injecting some crapware onto a machine for the sake of seeing what their
doing.

Reconnaissance is usually something done beforehand to mitigate your
strategy. Not mitigate what's happening after you possibly sent 1Gb of
traffic down a 100Mb pipe.



-- 
====================================================
J. Oquendo
"Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta"

http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF684C42E
sil . infiltrated @ net http://www.infiltrated.net

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>