F-Secure's Hyppönen said they were wrong: "Updated to add: We were wrong, the attack was done with an IE 0-day attack instead."
http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00001854.html And http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2010/01/idefense_putting_speculations.html http://blogs.verisign.com/idefense/ Juha-Matti Larry Seltzer [[email protected]] kirjoitti: > What I want to know about this incident is why some (F-Secure and especially > iDefense) were claiming with confidence yesterday that a PDF with the most > recent exploit was the main attack vector. Now Adobe and McAfee are saying > there's no actual evidence a PDF was involved. I have a lot of links in here: > > http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/2010/01/new_ie_0-day_not_acrobat_named.php > > McAfee appears to be the original identifiers of the IE 0-day. iDefense, on > the other hand, seems to have gotten their information at least partly from > "sources in the defense contracting and intelligence consulting community": > http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2010/01/researchers-identify-command-servers-behind-google-attack.ars > > Lots more links, especially McAfee links, here: > http://extraexploit.blogspot.com/2010/01/iexplorer-0day-cve-2010-0249.html > > Larry Seltzer > Contributing Editor, PC Magazine > [email protected] > http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/ _______________________________________________ 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.
