Two points. Regarding local versus remote, look at it this way: You have a 100% secure system. Then you install NASM. Now a user FROM THE NETWORK can send you some tainted assembly code for you to assemble and he can compromise your account. That is why it is considered remote. Local would mean that I, the attacker, need an account on the target machine to compromise the target account. In this nasm case, I do not need an account. That is why the wording "remote" was chosen. Now in regards to full disclosure, I think you should all be happy that we bothered to tell you all about these exploits. We could have selfishly used them to compromise machines, but instead we wrote them up and mailed them off to the users and the authors! That is very nice of us. If you would like notification sooner than the "public", find the exploit yourself. If I can find them, then surely anyone can. Regards, -- Jonathan Rockway <jrockw2@xxxxxxx>
