Bugtraq mailing list archives
Re: On classifying attacks
From: Thierry Carrez <koon () gentoo org>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:34:16 +0200
Forte Systems - Iosif Peterfi wrote:
Ok, so let's split them like this: 1. Simple 1.1 Remote 1.2 Local 2. Compound 2.1 Social engineered 2.2 Technical 2.3 Local [...] Does this makes sense to anyone ?!
I use "Active" instead of "Simple" and "Passive" instead of "Compound", but it's globally the same. "Compound"/"Passive" require the attacker to wait for something else to happen. That leaves me with: Remote Active Local Active Remote Passive (Social engineered) Remote Passive (Technical) Local Passive -- Koon
Current thread:
- RE: On classifying attacks Forte Systems - Iosif Peterfi (Aug 01)
- RE: On classifying attacks Tim Nelson (Aug 04)
- RE: On classifying attacks Forte Systems - Iosif Peterfi (Aug 06)
- Re: On classifying attacks Thierry Carrez (Aug 06)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: On classifying attacks Daniel Weber (Aug 01)
- Re: On classifying attacks Shwaine (Aug 06)
- Re: On classifying attacks Duncan Simpson (Aug 06)
- Re: On classifying attacks Crispin Cowan (Aug 04)
- RE: On classifying attacks Tim Nelson (Aug 04)