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. |

| Subject: | Re: RE: FAX virus |
|---|---|
| Date: | 19 Nov 2007 19:44:36 -0000 |
Scott, The question was originally posed as ?Can anyone send a fax that includes a file infected with the virus/ worm? (Wed, 07 Mar) My concern was not with sanitisation as you are trying to suggest. It is with the idea that a buffer overflow is the attack vector. That for instance a virus / worm could be embedded. This is a suggestion that I remain in disbelief of. What I suggested is an alternative. Rather then sending a virus/worm, send a XSS attack and rely on the users in the organisation to exploit this. If this is sent in a PDF, it is going to display as the scripted entry. So a conversion to an attached PDF is still not going to work as what is displayed is what is on the page. It will need to be sent directly to a web enabled email or web server. So it is not that I am suggesting an attack against the document processor, but rather extending this by adding user interaction. It is thus the user who extends this through reading email with the link or opening a page. In this case the site would still also have a simpler attack against the user in any instance. I also believe that you suggested ?If you allow the asterisk and parenthesis through, you run the risk of allowing SQL injection passed to your service.? The idea you stated other then a buffer overflow was a SQL injection. Neither of these are valid. You failed to consider XSS and having user involvement at the time. I did not think of this either. If you had suggested this I would have conceded that as an attack vector has I now have. The suggestion that an embedded buffer overflow or binary attack against the fax server is still out of the question. You for example stated: ?The communication is one-way as Craig so eloquently pointed out. But what if the command is to drop a database? In that case there was never any intention of receiving data back, it's a malicious vandalism of your database.? Again, this is not a valid path or attack vector Scott. You are attempting to add too much complexity. So consider a XSS as a simplification of your idea. By over complicating the idea to send SQL commands to an unknown database or worse embed a buffer overflow (which I am still wondering how you could even propose as I see no way to fax a NOP sled) you take the thesis to a level where it may not be supported. Regards, Dr Craig Wright ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This list is sponsored by: Cenzic Need to secure your web apps NOW? Cenzic finds more, "real" vulnerabilities fast. Click to try it, buy it or download a solution FREE today! http://www.cenzic.com/downloads ------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: Oracle SQL Injection vulnerability, Erin Carroll |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: Oracle SQL Injection vulnerability, Paul Melson |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: FAX virus, M.B.Jr. |
| Next by Thread: | Re: FAX virus, Alcides |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |