Re: On classifying attacks

[David M Chess <chess () us ibm com>]

> The difference with other client attacks triggered from remote location 
> is the attacker. If he/she connects to you and tries to exploit, the 
> service is running and then runs into say, an exception. With a browser 
> you go to a remote site, download code, run it locally and get 
exploited.
> I am not sure what these should be called, but an SQL injection is not a 

> remote vulnerability as we term it, despite some similarities.
>
> Many of us still argue on what a worm vs. Trojan vs. virus, etc. are. 
> Let's not get to the stage where we have that with vulnerabilities.

But many of us *love* to argue about taxonomies and word meanings (it's 
cheaper than booze anyway).  *8)

To my mind, if the attacker needs to be logged into an account on the 
machine being attacked then the vulnerability is local; if the attacker 
just has to be able to push bits to a port then it's remote.  If the 
attacker has to trick a legitimate user into doing something (including 
going to a particular remote site) then it's a Trojan horse.  Not hard and 
fast boundaries (what if the attacker has to first push some bits to a 
port and then fool a user into clicking on a link in some email and then 
log into a local account?), but to first order...

Calling an SQL injection a "Trojan horse vulnerability" sounds a little 
odd, I admit.  But until something better comes along?

DC