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 Vuln-Dev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: On classifying attacks

Subject: Re: On classifying attacks
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 04:09:52 +0200
Daniel Weber wrote:
Crispin Cowan wrote:

I participated in that Lincoln Labs study, and my recollection is
that the remote/local distinction was already popular on bugtraq at
the time.

I've seen a lot of classification schemes proposed on Bugtraq in the intervening years, some of them quite good. (Search the archives for "taxonomy" or "classification".) But unless they are -very- simple to use, they won't be taken up by the community. If you can come up with a single word that imputes the concept of "malicious data that I can easily get onto the victim's machine and in front of the victim's eyes but requires him to run it," that would be a great step forward.

Simplicity is key. (Unlike this posting, which I did not have time to make shorter and simpler.)

What made my life a little confusing of late was not Trojan horse attacks, as I got used to the idea of treating them with a different terminology all-together. Once on the system, it is compromised and how the attack happens is irrelevant but *can* be quantified. How it got on the system is the question here.
I.e., remote connection exploiting a service, etc.


The issue that bothers me is how we treat browser or generally client side vulnerabilities.

I often see advisories on bugtraq such as this:
Remote exploit while using a browser to gain local access
After reading, I find out it's an SQL injection.

Another example is, if a user has to browse to a remote site to get exploited, it is true the attack code was on a remote site, but the processing, the exception and the exploitation happened locally.

The difference with other client attacks triggered from remote location is the attacker. If he/she connects to you and tries to exploit, the service is running and then runs into say, an exception. With a browser you go to a remote site, download code, run it locally and get exploited.

I am not sure what these should be called, but an SQL injection is not a remote vulnerability as we term it, despite some similarities.

Many of us still argue on what a worm vs. Trojan vs. virus, etc. are. Let's not get to the stage where we have that with vulnerabilities.

        Gadi.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>