PDF exploits shown in this comparison as exceeding Flash based

FromTheRafters wrote:

I don't really consider DoS's to be a significant or credible
threat to anonymous end-users (what's the point?).

Well then, a DoS exploit is not an exploit to you?

To exploit something generally means to make some use of it.

When a computer is exploited, it means (in this context) that a third
party is or has gained some use or operational control over it.

DoS events and exploits are not (to my knowledge) used against the
average web-surfer, e-mail reader, home or soho user - but instead are
used against specific machines, servers, etc.

There are some exploits that have no function other than to cause
instability or crash a target system (ie- DoS). The use of such
"exploit" code in that situation will achieve some goal by the attacker,
but I question if it can be said that the target machine was actually
"exploited" in the process.

Until we see a functional example of an operable PDF exploit
AND payload for the Win-98/Acrobat-6 combination then we
can't be sure *if* there is a viable exploit in the first
place.

I suppose you have your own unique definition of payload then?

Where do I say that?

I'm just saying that there has not been any PDF exploit-code analysis
that I've ever seen where it was proved or shown that the exploit would
work on a win-98/acrobat-6 system. And going further, I'm not aware of
an appropriate payload / shellcode that has ever circulated in the wild
to go along with such an exploit.

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
FromTheRafters wrote:

I don't really consider DoS's to be a significant or credible
threat to anonymous end-users (what's the point?).

Well then, a DoS exploit is not an exploit to you?

To exploit something generally means to make some use of it.

Exactly, but what you are exploiting is the vulnerability. You make use
of the vulnerability to affect a DoS.

When a computer is exploited, it means (in this context) that a third
party is or has gained some use or operational control over it.

It always starts with a DoS.

DoS events and exploits are not (to my knowledge) used against the
average web-surfer, e-mail reader, home or soho user - but instead are
used against specific machines, servers, etc.

That would be dDoS (distributed DoS) attacks.

There are some exploits that have no function other than to cause
instability or crash a target system (ie- DoS). The use of such
"exploit" code in that situation will achieve some goal by the
attacker,
but I question if it can be said that the target machine was actually
"exploited" in the process.

The vulnerability was exploited to do a DoS.

Until we see a functional example of an operable PDF exploit
AND payload for the Win-98/Acrobat-6 combination then we
can't be sure *if* there is a viable exploit in the first
place.

I suppose you have your own unique definition of payload then?

Where do I say that?

I inferred it from your evident need for coupling payload with exploit.

I'm just saying that there has not been any PDF exploit-code analysis
that I've ever seen where it was proved or shown that the exploit
would
work on a win-98/acrobat-6 system. And going further, I'm not aware
of
an appropriate payload / shellcode that has ever circulated in the
wild
to go along with such an exploit.

I can agree with that observation.

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
FromTheRafters wrote:

I don't really consider DoS's to be a significant or credible
threat to anonymous end-users (what's the point?).

Well then, a DoS exploit is not an exploit to you?

To exploit something generally means to make some use of it.

Exactly, but what you are exploiting is the vulnerability. You make use
of the vulnerability to affect a DoS.

When a computer is exploited, it means (in this context) that a third
party is or has gained some use or operational control over it.

It always starts with a DoS.

DoS events and exploits are not (to my knowledge) used against the
average web-surfer, e-mail reader, home or soho user - but instead are
used against specific machines, servers, etc.

That would be dDoS (distributed DoS) attacks.

There are some exploits that have no function other than to cause
instability or crash a target system (ie- DoS). The use of such
"exploit" code in that situation will achieve some goal by the
attacker,
but I question if it can be said that the target machine was actually
"exploited" in the process.

The vulnerability was exploited to do a DoS.

Until we see a functional example of an operable PDF exploit
AND payload for the Win-98/Acrobat-6 combination then we
can't be sure *if* there is a viable exploit in the first
place.

I suppose you have your own unique definition of payload then?

Where do I say that?

I inferred it from your evident need for coupling payload with exploit.

I'm just saying that there has not been any PDF exploit-code analysis
that I've ever seen where it was proved or shown that the exploit
would
work on a win-98/acrobat-6 system. And going further, I'm not aware
of
an appropriate payload / shellcode that has ever circulated in the
wild
to go along with such an exploit.

I can agree with that observation.

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:47:24 +0100, "Jesper Ravn" wrote:

"MEB" skrev i meddelelsen
...

Excuse the cross post, however, Windows 9X [being left out of the
updating process] is just as vulnerable, if not more, than using
outdated applications in other OSs.

A basic explanation is found he
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=5473&tag=nl.e539

I suggest following the linked materials, and further research into the
various methods being used.
NOTE: that the use of "traffic optimization", which is running programs
to detect the available exploitable aspects in any given OS and/or
system, has increased, and is now the preferred method being used for
malicious activity distribution purposes.

Hello

To me it's just another fuzz story from a mainstream security magazine/blog,
that don't focus on a good prevention strategy.
All they care about is the scary headline and the same boring conclusion
about Firefox......

I really miss the word's "principle of least privilege" and "deny-all
policies" in the security debate today.

/Jesper

You could always switch to any other OS that properly supports the concept.