On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Craig Schmugar wrote:
> [Gadi] You know how insecure you are, and what you need to protect yourself.
> What programs to use, what not to use. What IDS signatures you may need, and
> what vendor you need to preasure.
>
> [Craig] My point is that the majority of the Internet will not know (and
> subsequently not protect themselves, and not pressure the vendor -- most
> aren't equipped to do so anyway).
>
> [Gadi] Many of these have exploit code in the hands of bad people, so YES,
> we will see worms using this as a direct result, but we will also no longer
> see many directed attacks using them.
>
> [Craig]
> Have to disagree there. WMF, createTxtRange, MS06-040 etc were abused much
I agree with you Craig, but our problem is one of definitions. of the two
above - WMF and createTextRange were both 0days, exploited in the wild
before public disclosure.
> more after exploit code was readily available and Blaster and Sasser may
> never have existed if exploit wasn't so public.
>
> I am not saying that hackers don't exploit unpublished vuln, of course they
> do, but the number of victims and amount of damage jumps exponentially once
> that exploit is readily available. And I can't endorse irresponsible
> disclosure. One of the arguments for irresponsible disclosure is that
> certain vendors won't release a patch or will take too long to release a
> patch without it. However, when you have 0-day threats like CVE-2005-0944
> that have remained unpatched for more than 18 months (Ok, maybe this isn't
> your average 0-day response), you have to wonder how strong that argument is
> anymore [and I use this example as it's still an actively exploited remote
> code execution vulnerability].
I agree, 100%, that public exploit code is directly responsible for worms
and bots exploiting new vulnerabilities. It's an industry, without this
exploit code, they use something else.
Without that exploit code, only select few can protect themselves, if at
all.
Without that publicity, we would not know we are vulnerable.
The world is changing, unfortunately.
Gadi.
>
> Craig
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gadi Evron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 12:13 AM
> To: Craig Schmugar
> Cc: 'Fergie'; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [funsec] Month of Kernel Bugs - day 1
>
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Craig Schmugar wrote:
> > > As an educated consumer: yes.
> >
> > Then I'll add the word "all" to my statement [I might question the
> > phrase "these days" in Gadi's statement "you are all more secure these
> > days"]
> >
> > all <> "educated consumer"
>
> Erm, all more secure these days, as a statement, links back to my previous
> words in that paragraph/text.
>
> Why do you disagree, let's open it for discussion.
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fergie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 8:02 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [funsec] Month of Kernel Bugs - day 1
> >
> > As an educated consumer: yes.
> >
> > - ferg
> >
> >
> >
> > -- "Craig Schmugar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Patch patch patch? What patch? Last time I checked there were 2 or
> > maybe 3 patches available for the 25 IE-related MoBB issues (from July).
> >
> > So, I might question the phrase "these days" in Gadi's statement "you
> > are all more secure these days"
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 10:02 AM
> > To: Gadi Evron
> > Cc: FunSec [List]
> > Subject: Re: [funsec] Month of Kernel Bugs - day 1
> >
> > On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 10:41:17 CST, Gadi Evron said:
> > > And don't anyone dare speak against HD Moore. He is the reason you
> > > are all more secure these days. Not less so.
> >
> > Amen to that - fire up Metasploit, build and launch something, and
> > then mention that *every* hacker has a copy. Makes even the most
> > recalcitrant user curl up like a breaded prawn and want to go home and
> > patch patch patch
> > ;)
> >
> > (That, and Metasploit building blocks are an *incredible* reference if
> > you're building *other* tools to look for either exploits or payloads.
> > ;)
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
> > Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net
> > ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
> > https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
> > Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
> >
>
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
