http://eeyeresearch.typepad.com/blog/ http://research.eeye.com/html/alerts/zeroday/index.html "If something is reported as a non-exploitable bug, we'll make sure to exhaust the flaw for exploitability, as we have shown with the ASX Playlist and the ADODB.Connection ActiveX zero-day vulnerabilities." Or.. FUD? 1.) Adobe ActiveX http://research.eeye.com/html/alerts/zeroday/20061128.html "Although there was no supplied proof of concept for these vulnerabilities, releasing the method names as well as the fact that they are 'memory corruption' errors and 'could be exploited by attackers to take complete control of an affected system' without a vendor-supplied patch will put many Adobe users at risk." And.. "Remote Code Execution: Yes" Now wait a second, I thought that you guys were going to "make sure to exhaust the flaw for exploitability"? Did you actually try this out that you can say Remote Code Execution is possible? 2.) ASX Playlist http://research.eeye.com/html/alerts/zeroday/20061122.html Now this is fun. "Severity: High Remote Code Execution: Yes" "As a result, a two- or four-byte heap overflow is possible if the "REF HREF" URL features a protocol shorter than three characters (the length of "mms")." Ok. But wait, what's this sentence doing here: "Exploitability due to the corruption of the adjacent heap block's header has not yet been demonstrated but is assumed likely." So... you ASSUMED that it is likely, even though you can only have up to a 4-byte overwrite which does not overwrite the needed pointers in order to actually exploit this, yet you say "Yes" in Remote Code Execution? trippin-out, "noodles for long life!"
