> The difference with other client attacks triggered from remote location > is the attacker. If he/she connects to you and tries to exploit, the > service is running and then runs into say, an exception. With a browser > you go to a remote site, download code, run it locally and get exploited. > > I am not sure what these should be called, but an SQL injection is not a > remote vulnerability as we term it, despite some similarities. > > Many of us still argue on what a worm vs. Trojan vs. virus, etc. are. > Let's not get to the stage where we have that with vulnerabilities. But many of us *love* to argue about taxonomies and word meanings (it's cheaper than booze anyway). *8) To my mind, if the attacker needs to be logged into an account on the machine being attacked then the vulnerability is local; if the attacker just has to be able to push bits to a port then it's remote. If the attacker has to trick a legitimate user into doing something (including going to a particular remote site) then it's a Trojan horse. Not hard and fast boundaries (what if the attacker has to first push some bits to a port and then fool a user into clicking on a link in some email and then log into a local account?), but to first order... Calling an SQL injection a "Trojan horse vulnerability" sounds a little odd, I admit. But until something better comes along? DC
