full-disclosure-uk May 2007 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > full-disclosure-uk archives
full-disclosure-uk: Re: [Full-disclosure] Month of ActiveX Bug

Re: [Full-disclosure] Month of ActiveX Bug

From: <Valdis.Kletnieks_at_nospam>
Date: Tue May 01 2007 - 16:45:24 GMT
To: Larry Seltzer <Larry@larryseltzer.com>

On Tue, 01 May 2007 12:24:47 EDT, Larry Seltzer said:
> >>Consider that most often a bug filed as DOS can actually be
> exploitable, but the person who discovered it can't get the POC working
> or is even aware it is. While command execution is the ideal goal it
> doesn't mean other types of issues are *completely* worthless.
> Most often? How do you know that?

Given the number of programs I've filed "Version XYZ segfaults under conditions A, B, and C" bug reports, compared to the number of things that were obviously exploitable, I have to conclude that either I'm a lot worse than Joe Programmer at identifying what's exploitable, or that a lot of *other* programmers are filing "Version XYZ segfaults" bug reports without understanding if they're exploitable - and quite often the segfault gets *fixed* as "just a segfault" rather than as a security-level bug.

Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/