Am 29.04.2014 21:36, schrieb Andrew Lutomirski:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Reindl Harald
<h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote:
> simple example:
>
> * binary XYZ is vulerable for privilege escalation
This makes no sense...
for you
> * we talk about a *local* exploit until now
...I don't even know what you're trying to say here...
than google for
* "privilege escalation"
* "local exploit"
* "remote exploit"
that could be a good start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploit_%28computer_security%29
> * a bad configured webserver allows system-commands through a
php-script
> and i consider that you google for the /e modifier
...and this is already sufficient for a remote exploit.
yes, but the difference may be if you only can run unprivileged
code or have a chance to own the machine and get root
Can we please move all discussion of "Zomg! This feature would
take an
existing security hole and turn it into a security hole with exactly
the same impact" into its own thread or just stop it entirely? All it
does is distract from real discussion
can you please start to goole for things others talking about?