Re: Google Chrome Browser Vulnerability

[redb0ne () hush com]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

My judgment is telling me to just ignore this, but I'll entertain
it with one response.

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:04:34 -0400 Shyaam <shyaam () gmail com> wrote:
> This is a healthy discussion. This topic leads to a very good
> question. When
> do we call a bug as a vulnerability and when does an issue really
> turn out
> to be a security issue. When we have memory index out of bound
> error or when
> we have a OS level code having a out of bound memory error or when
> we
> reference an index value that doesn't exist  or in many other
> cases, we do
> reference it as a vulnerability.

Out of bound array accesses can be vulnerabilities because they can
in some cases result in code execution, but not in this case. In
this case, it is just an integer underflow that causes a
conditional to evaluate to true that shouldn't have and a byte or
two of memory being read out of bounds. There is no write, the
memory can't be leaked by an attacker, it is simply a crash.

You can't even begin to compare a kernel denial of service to a
browser crash, killing a browser is a world away from taking down
an entire system. Let's face it, the last thing we need is someone
whoring out attention for every browser crash they come across.
Report it and be done with it, no one cares.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Charset: UTF8
Version: Hush 3.0
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify

wpwEAQMCAAYFAki/TP0ACgkQGwcl4JwqQeBmIwP+Lx9ie5O6Pg8NsX4oJOnMlbh7AfWe
05CxdoLEkocqs583yuuaDbxokZU8g4dyB+eNYDl0Y2+xT/rJJSQtXRAsVLJ/NJcdUtiA
9xxLWbZMNkUnVXlnggsYBm3rYvS6BRNezy06+SEChczEz5h8sP5AZYeQJuYsCXBG1uYD
bzG+j0A=
=P0V0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/