[Full-disclosure] windows vulnerability? [was: Re: [Code-Crunchers] 137 bytes]

[Gadi Evron]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006, onisan wrote:
> One thing is in this makes it even more interesting, most of the firewalls
> do not block this download, so it's smallest and most dangerous downloader
> at the same time :o

What Alex did is very impressive! Matthew Murphy came up with the idea
originally, I think, but it doesn't take from this amazing work in any
way.
*awe struck*

I'd say more though, it's a vulnerability.

If you can load a library remotely, and do so with no problems, it's a
vulnerability in Windows. I am not sure of what kind quite yet.

The mother of all downloaders.

"The Zone has a new King!" <we're not worthy x3>
	-- Jeff, Coupling (BBC, UK).

	Gadi.

> -- G
> 
> 2006/11/8, Solar Eclipse <solareclipse at phreedom.org>:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 10:56:42AM -0800, Peter Ferrie wrote:
> > > Why is the idata size present?  AFAIK, no Windows version checks it.
> > > Four bytes shorter, then (stop at the idata rva non-zero byte)?
> >
> > You're right, you can remove the last field and bring the file size down
> > to 133 bytes. That's what I get for claiming that the size can't be
> > improved :-)
> >
> > Solar
> > _______________________________________________
> > Code-Crunchers mailing list
> > Code-Crunchers at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> > http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/code-crunchers