Dailydave mailing list archives
Re: A change
From: val smith <valsmith () attackresearch com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:35:32 -0700
Yeh, idk, id be careful with saying its sophisticated or unsophisticated. Ive seen a lot of really hardcore attacks that use some lame sploit or phishing as a component of something larger. I think the media is quick to jump to "omg cyber-ninjas!" and security people are quick to jump to "omg lame script kiddies!". Ill admit that burning an 0day seems to be a stupid thing to do, unless its some kind of mis-direction. Also there are certain elements out there who don't really seem to care: 1.) if the target discovers the intrusion 2.) if the target knows who they are 3.) if they use high end tools or not (they use both) 4.) if they burn tools Attackers keep getting in and getting data so why go a step higher? When I do tests, a lot of the time I use maybe one exploit, usually old, and then a combination of even older techniques and usually own everything and don't get detected, so is that unsophisticated? Or just using the minimal amount of force necessary to achieve the goal? V. On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:47 AM, Nelson Brito <nbrito () sekure org> wrote:
Well... A really sophisticated attack can use "one year old" vulnerability targeting new exploit "triggers" inside vulnerabilities. I have demonstrated this in H2HC - how to play a little bit deeper to really know "almost all" the aspects behind a vulnerability. I can tell you that some of "Protection Solutions" doesn't really protects and just let the "new exploit" pass thru the protection layers. I call this "Z-Day": An "one-year-old" vulnerability's new approach, that could be compared to new "0-day"... Hopefully I will submit this to BH-USA and will demonstrate my approach. /* * $Id: .siganture,v 1.3 2009-12-11 09:22:54-02 nbrito Exp $ * * Author: Nelson Brito <nbrito [at] sekure [dot] org> Copyright(c) 2004-2009 Nelson Brito. All rights reserved worldwide. http://fnstenv.blogspot.com */-----Original Message----- From: dailydave-bounces () lists immunitysec com [mailto:dailydave- bounces () lists immunitysec com] On Behalf Of dave Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 4:39 PM To: dailydave () lists immunityinc com Subject: [Dailydave] A change -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I think we're seeing a sudden change in how large companies (or simply companies with a high level of perceived threat[1]) deal with software security. Perhaps the era of IDS and AV and scanners has come to an abrupt end? We can only hope. Everyone says an attack is "sophisticated" whenever any 0day is involved. But that should be the baseline. Or rather, it IS the baseline and everyone seems to just be finding out. One of the things Immunity has been including in our services but is now offering seperately is a client-side 0day penetration test against a single host using CANVAS technology. You get your penetration verified during phone consultation. And you receive real-time analyst interpretation of results, plus delivery of log data at the end. For more information you can contact mark () immunityinc com. Thanks, Dave Aitel Immunity, Inc. [1]http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10434551-245.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAktQtl4ACgkQtehAhL0gherpYgCfcmGb9odb00W5XC9GgXbHHzXf KjUAn32K/UblyoI4dA9iIC6ktbqNfa+i =EWHt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Dailydave mailing list Dailydave () lists immunitysec com http://lists.immunitysec.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave_______________________________________________ Dailydave mailing list Dailydave () lists immunitysec com http://lists.immunitysec.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Qui audet adipiscitur
_______________________________________________ Dailydave mailing list Dailydave () lists immunitysec com http://lists.immunitysec.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave
Current thread:
- A change dave (Jan 15)
- Re: A change Charles Miller (Jan 15)
- Re: A change Moxie Marlinspike (Jan 15)
- Re: A change Parity (Jan 19)
- Re: A change Rich Smith (Jan 18)
- Re: A change delchi delchi (Jan 20)
- Re: A change Moxie Marlinspike (Jan 15)
- Re: A change Nelson Brito (Jan 18)
- Re: A change val smith (Jan 19)
- Re: A change Matthew Wollenweber (Jan 20)
- Re: A change Marius (Jan 20)
- Re: A change Jim Manico (Jan 20)
- Re: A change Menerick, John (Jan 24)
- Re: A change Ben Nagy (Jan 26)
- Re: A change Rodrigo Rubira Branco (BSDaemon) (Jan 27)
- Re: A change Nick FitzGerald (Jan 27)
- Re: A change Lurene Grenier (Jan 27)
- Re: A change Dragos Ruiu (Jan 28)
- Re: A change Charles Miller (Jan 15)