[Full-disclosure] Month of ActiveX Bug

[Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu]

On Tue, 01 May 2007 12:24:47 EDT, Larry Seltzer said:
> >>Consider that most often a bug filed as DOS can actually be
> exploitable, but the person who discovered it can't get the POC working
> or is even aware it is. While command execution is the ideal goal it
> doesn't mean other types of issues are *completely* worthless.   
> 
> Most often? How do you know that?

Given the number of programs I've filed "Version XYZ segfaults under conditions
A, B, and C" bug reports, compared to the number of things that were obviously
exploitable, I have to conclude that either I'm a lot worse than Joe Programmer
at identifying what's exploitable, or that a lot of *other* programmers are
filing "Version XYZ segfaults" bug reports without understanding if they're
exploitable - and quite often the segfault gets *fixed* as "just a segfault"
rather than as a security-level bug.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20070501/a5ca15dc/attachment.bin