Re: Re New Binary Bruteforcing Method Discovered

["John" <johns () tampabay rr com>]

I think it's worth mentioning that the tool I linked to was not mentioned or
tested in this paper. I mentioned this tool because it has quite a few
command line options and it actually tries to execute arbitrary commands.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Schaller" <schaller () freeshell org>
To: "John" <johns () tampabay rr com>
Cc: "Michal Zalewski" <lcamtuf () coredump cx>; <mixter () 2xs co il>;
<vuln-dev () securityfocus com>
Sent: March 27, 2002 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: Re New Binary Bruteforcing Method Discovered


> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, John wrote:
>
> > A while back there was a tool that was released that would brute force
> > binaries and attempt to exploit the bug. It attempted to exploit simple
> > stack overflows, but it was a nice tool at the time.
> >
> > http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/vuln-dev/2000-q3/0710.html
>
> <two cents>
> I wrote a paper for SANS last summer which surveyed the available
> auditing tools (source code scanners, black box testers, and known
> exploits). Against the simple target program I chose (Hobbit's
> "webs"), the black-box testers failed miserably, for reasons that
> I go into in the paper (basically, that they aren't
> protocol-aware). Brute-force black-box scanners catch the
> low-hanging fruit, bug-wise.
>
> Direct URL (the report is the HTML file inside the ZIP file):
> http://www.giac.org/practical/Jeff_Schaller_GSNA.zip
>
> Other reports available from:
> http://www.giac.org/GSNA.php
> </two cents>
>
> -jeff
> --
> Last week, scientists announced the first-ever cloning of a human embryo,
> which they hope to mine for stem cells to treat diseases. What do you
think?
> "I think I'll just sit back and let the ignorant, hysterical Christians
> handle this one." Peter Jordan, Systems Analyst. The Onion.