Skip to main content

Comment becoming a post

Got this as an anonymous comment on my last post:

"anonymous said...
How is it even remotely weak? Considering most virii spreading around these days is done via browser related vulnerabilities, I hardly would consider it "weak".

If it is so easy to discover browser vulnerabilities then how come IE7 held up on the Windows box (until the 3rd day when it was owned by flash)? How come you don't have any browser vulnerabilities credited to your name?

I hate to be "that guy", but the guy that won Pwn2Own walked away with $10k and a new laptop. I doubt he cares too much what bloggers think of him or his vulnerability, especially someone that hasn't done any similar research. Don't bash someone else's work unless you can reproduce it yourself.

Mon Mar 31, 08:55:00 AM"

My response:

Dear person-who-didn't-leave-their-name,

Who says I was bashing work? I still think it's a weak vulnerability.

I'm not saying that the guy that discovered it is stupid, or that the exploit itself is stupid -- props to him for getting 10k and a fat laptop. I'm saying that most of the journalists and bloggers out there are saying things like "Mac owned in 2 minutes". Really? Was it owned in two minutes? Or did the guy merely have the exploit already set up on his webpage before the contest began. Does that make sense? I don't like sensationalist headlines, essentially.

I'm also not saying it's easy for someone to discover the vulnerability, I am sure it took alot of research and fuzzing. I am saying now-a-days, there are alot of browser vulnerabilities. It seems like every week there is at least one. I'm not saying that the research that is done by the people isn't worthwhile, I am just not a fan of browser vulnerabilities, because, as I said.. It's easy to switch browsers.

I do think it was interesting that Windows held up until Flash was introduced. But what kind of metrics are we using here? A machine wasn't able to get exploited in one week? It takes more time than that doesn't it?

All punditry. I guess I just miss the days of remote server side exploits like ws_ftp, IIS, and the like.


Subscribe in a reader

Comments

Anonymous said…
ah, I see what you are getting at now and I can't say I disagree (for the most part).

Most journalists annoy me as well, their sensationalism is only part of it. I still giggle, yet die a little inside, every time I see the title of Robert Vamosi's blog.

Thanks for clarifying your position, I see what you are getting at now and realize that I jumped the gun a little bit ;)
Joel Esler said…
Yes, thanks, that's why I reposted. Thanks for coming back.
Anonymous said…
ah, I see what you are getting at now and I can't say I disagree (for the most part). Most journalists annoy me as well, their sensationalism is only part of it. I still giggle, yet die a little inside, every time I see the title of Robert Vamosi's blog. Thanks for clarifying your position, I see what you are getting at now and realize that I jumped the gun a little bit ;)
Joel Esler said…
Yes, thanks, that's why I reposted. Thanks for coming back.
adminian.com said…
Sure you can change browsers...till you can't change browsers. When you can't change browsers due to policy then what? -- and we all ALWAYS follow policy.

...and of course Miller didn't show up and bang out the exploit. No he'd prepared it before hand and showed up ready to win, but is that the point?

Could the underlying reason for these systems not getting hacked be that the right people don't care for these conferences? --What would that contest have looked like at defcon? I have no opinion just questions...

I do agree browser exploits are not AS fun, because they are not used on your time. Still access is access...

/ip
Joel Esler said…
I just think the article was sensationalist. That's all. I think cansecwest is a bigger and more headlining conference then defcon. Defcon is still considered "black hat" even though it's not so much anymore.
adminian.com said…
Sure you can change browsers...till you can't change browsers. When you can't change browsers due to policy then what? -- and we all ALWAYS follow policy....and of course Miller didn't show up and bang out the exploit. No he'd prepared it before hand and showed up ready to win, but is that the point? Could the underlying reason for these systems not getting hacked be that the right people don't care for these conferences? --What would that contest have looked like at defcon? I have no opinion just questions...I do agree browser exploits are not AS fun, because they are not used on your time. Still access is access.../ip
Joel Esler said…
I just think the article was sensationalist. That's all. I think cansecwest is a bigger and more headlining conference then defcon. Defcon is still considered "black hat" even though it's not so much anymore.

Popular posts from this blog

Offset, Depth, Distance, and Within

Without going off the deep-end here and discussing every single Snort rule keyword, I just wanted to touch on a few modifiers that people sometimes misunderstand.  They aren't difficult, and hopefully after this explanation and a few examples, I can clear some of the air around these five modifiers.

The five modifiers that I am talking about are
OffsetDepthDistanceWithinnocaseThese five modifiers are not keywords of themselves, but rather they apply as modifiers to another keyword.  That keyword is "content". The content keyword is one of the easiest pieces of the Snort rules language as all it does is look for a particular string.  So for instance if I wanted to look for the word "joel" within a packet.  A simple:
content:"joel";Would allow me to do that.  The interesting part comes into play when you want to specify where inside of a particular packet you want the string "joel" to be looked for.  If you are running just a plain content ma…

Writing Snort Rules Correctly

Let me start off by saying I'm not bashing the writer of this article, and I'm trying not to be super critical.  I don't want to discourage this person from writing articles about Snort rules.  It's great when people in the Snort community step up and explain some simple things out there.  There are mistakes, it comes with the territory.  If you choose to be one of the people that tries to write Snort rules, you also choose to be someone who wants to learn how to do it better.  That's why I write this blog post, not to bash the writer, but to teach.

I noticed this post today over at the "Tao of Signature Writing" blog, and to be honest I glanced over most of it figuring it was a rehash of things I've already read or things that have already been written from countless people about "Here's how you write Snort rules!".  I scrolled down quickly skimming, not reading at all really, and noticed this part:
Now, let us look at the second questio…

Safari 5.1.4 now available

Safari 5.1.4 now available, fixes issues and improves performance | TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog:


Improve JavaScript performanceImprove responsiveness when typing into the search field after changing network configurations or with an intermittent network connectionAddress an issue that could cause webpages to flash white when switching between Safari windowsAddress issues that prevented printing U.S. Postal Service shipping labels and embedded PDFsPreserve links in PDFs saved from webpagesFix an issue that could make Flash content appear incomplete after using gesture zoomingFix an issue that could cause the screen to dim while watching HTML5 videoImprove stability, compatibility and startup time when using extensionsAllow cookies set during regular browsing to be available after using Private BrowsingFix an issue that could cause some data to be left behind after pressing the "Remove All Website Data" button