Re: What the f*** is going on?

[Chris Evans <scarybeasts () gmail com>]

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Michele Orru <antisnatchor () gmail com>wrote:

>  ------------------------------
>
>    Chris Evans <scarybeasts () gmail com>
> February 23, 2011 1:35 AM
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Michal Zalewski <lcamtuf () coredump cx>wrote:
>
> > > Also, I would say that even though randomly prodding exec arguments
> > > with As isn't so elite, the space of "the non-web" is much more deep
> > > and much more complex than the space of "the web"..
> >
> >  I think that sentiment made sense 8-10 years ago, but today, it's
> > increasingly difficult to defend. I mean, we are at a point where
> > casual users can do without any "real" applications, beyond just
> > having a browser. And in terms of complexity, the browser itself is
> > approaching the kernel, and is growing more rapidly.
> >
> > Yes, web app vulnerabilities are easier to discover.
>
>
>  Web app security is beginners' security -- surely everyone knows that?
>
>   Those with talent graduate on to low-level vulns (mem corruptions,
> kernel vulns, etc).
>
> Well even if I agree with you, I don't think guys like rsnake, grossman,
> .mario, vela, ecc..
> are not talented just because they mainly focus on web app/client side
> security.
>
> I'm the first one among many who want to learn RE and low level things,
> but I think both of the sides are complex enough.
>
> Isn't your colleague Michal more focused on web app security nowadays?

Yeah.... you know, we're not all in our teens or 20s any more. The mind
ages... the skillz fade... and a return to web app sec is sadly inevitable.

</troll2>


Cheers
Chris


> Cheers
> antisnatchor
>
>  </troll>
>
>
>  Cheers
> Chris
>
>  That's partly
> > because of horrible design decisions back in the 1990s, and partly
> > because we're dealing with greater diversity, more complex
> > interactions, and a much younger codebase. Plus, we had much less time
> > to develop systemic defenses.
> >
> > /mz
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>
> ------------------------------
>
>    Michal Zalewski <lcamtuf () coredump cx>
> February 22, 2011 11:42 PM
>
>
> I think that sentiment made sense 8-10 years ago, but today, it's
> increasingly difficult to defend. I mean, we are at a point where
> casual users can do without any "real" applications, beyond just
> having a browser. And in terms of complexity, the browser itself is
> approaching the kernel, and is growing more rapidly.
>
> Yes, web app vulnerabilities are easier to discover. That's partly
>
> because of horrible design decisions back in the 1990s, and partly
> because we're dealing with greater diversity, more complex
> interactions, and a much younger codebase. Plus, we had much less time
> to develop systemic defenses.
>
> /mz
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>  ------------------------------
>
>    Charles Morris <cmorris () cs odu edu>
> February 22, 2011 10:44 PM
>
> <mz>
>  </mz>
>
> Michal, your blog writeup does cut to the disheartening core of the
> issue, but as we all know large non-savvy organizations just eat that
> bravado and mystery up.
>
> Also, I would say that even though randomly prodding exec arguments
> with As isn't so elite, the space of "the non-web" is much more deep
> and much more complex than the space of "the web".. and the
> vulnerabilities are generally more interesting, generally more
> difficult to find, and generally more difficult to exploit. If we
> examine the specialists in each area, I also think there is a general
> trend that "the web" houses the "less l33t", and "the non-web" houses
> the "more l33t". In general. I'm sure one can find the great and the
> garbage in both arenas.
>
> I also completely agree with your concern for the well being of both
> our tax dollars, the health and safety of the internet, and our
> physical persons as well. I don't want HBGary sending some thugs to
> knock me with a blackjack if they see me on the wikileaks IRC
> channel..
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>  ------------------------------
>
>    Michal Zalewski <lcamtuf () coredump cx>
> February 22, 2011 6:11 PM
>
>  I mean, if these are the security industry's geniuses, why, what would the
> writers of Stuxnet be?
>
>  ...seriously?
>
>
>  Disclosing how their epic story simply involved SQLi, well, what about the
> guys discovering 0days in native code?
>
>
> Totally. I have long postulated that perl -e '{print "A"x1000}' is
> considerably more l33t than <script>alert(1)</script> or ' OR '1' ==
> '1.
>
> I don't understand the point you are getting at. I think that the more
> interesting aspect of this story are the egregious practices revealed
> in that write-up (and elsewhere):
>
> http://lcamtuf.blogspot.com/2011/02/world-of-hbgary.html
>
>
> /mz
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>
> ------------------------------
>
>    Pietro de Medici <piedemed () gmail com>
> February 21, 2011 6:46 PM
>
>
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/anonymous-speaks-the-inside-story-of-the-hbgary-hack.ars
>
> Been reading the ...ah...umpteenth(?) article over the HBGary story.
>
> Well, it's been fun and all, but seriously, this is getting tiring.
>
> I don't want to bash Anonymous - they've got enough BS already, and we all
> know about it, it ain't worth even mentioning.
>
> Instead, I'll talk about the clueless idiots out there which run supposedly
> informative articles.
>
> So yeah, now we're calling kids vandalizing websites, causing worthless
> damage, experts, geniuses even?
>
> I mean, if these are the security industry's geniuses, why, what would the
> writers of Stuxnet be?
>
> Disclosing how their epic story simply involved SQLi, well, what about the
> guys discovering 0days in native code?
>
> Then there's the law aspect. Many seem to award people intruding and
> damaging private property, exposing confidential data somewhat of a good
> deed.
> Yes, similar to punks expressing their artistic capabilities on your front
> door and making off with anything they can pull off from your car, if not
> with it as well.
>
> When one views what kind of stuff they do, as well as their literacy level,
> one can only conclude they're not far from the lowly term of "script
> kiddies".
>
> But let's leave the self-acclaimed victims aside - what about the media.
> Surely naming kids as security gurus easily makes up a media sensation.
> Wonder how much time these authors have until the FBI knocks by. Don't know
> how many counts of infringements they did, and unlike the, uh, security
> gurus, they pretty much left their ID card for every cop in town to look at.
>
> Da sempre vostro,
> Pietro DeMedici
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

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