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: | XSS, SQL injection etc - permutations of input strings |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sat, 18 Sep 2004 19:15:54 -0400 |
Over the past few days I've seen many posts about different ways of encoding XSS/SQL injection strings, as well as leveraging a discovered vulnerability in order to get more information about the target (other DB fields/schema). The question I'd like to ask the list is once you know a particular input vector is vulnerable, why are people trying to push the exploit further, assuming that they are pen-testing rather than hacking the target? For the uninformed client, being able to show them that you 0wn3 their server/app once should be enough to treat *any* discovered flaw as serious enough to fix, even if it's only a JS alert box, a "or 1=1", or a "select from another table" attack. My assumption here is a tester should use a variety of inputs to see how an application responds, but when it's clear that there's a defect somewhere you report the flaw back to the developers, telling them what/when/how, etc, then work with them to ensure they only accept *valid* input and not just filter for all of the ways you've attacked the flaw. There's obviously alternative inputs (i.e. debugging to help understand the defect), re-testing issues, and ensuring the fix actually did what it was supposed to, but my belief is that once developers know they have a problem (for whatever reason) they are in much better position to put in a generic fix. Any thoughts on this. What is the point of extending an attack to (for example) discover the entire DB schema unless it is just showing off? Cheers, Mike ---- Mike Andrews Florida Institute of Technology
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: XSS Testing, Mike Andrews |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: RSA vs. Versigin. How do I choose?, cam |
| Previous by Thread: | XSS Testing, PenTest Guy |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XSS, SQL injection etc - permutations of input strings, Harrison Gladden |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |