Re: [Full-disclosure] Apple Safari ... DoS Vulnerability

[Chris Evans <scarybeasts@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:22 AM, jf <jf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Eh? If you visit www.evil.com and your tab crashes, that's no
>> different from www.evil.com closing its own tab with Javascript.
>
> While I generally agree that if its just a straight DoS that there is
> very little difference-- but to play devils advocate some--
> the difference is that with JS closing the tab, the code path was a
> known/valid/authorized one, whereas the other could potentially be
> anything, and whatever it is, it could be useful given the right
> circumstances.
>
> I know you know this, Chris, actually both of you (&& Thierry), so I'm
> somewhat preaching to the choir perhaps, but imho, all sigsegv's are at
> least worth investigating;

Sure.
For the sake of prolonging a pointless argument, let's stick to the
original premise of a tab crash with no other consequence, and see
where it goes :)

> 99.9% of them may be a useless dos, .09% might
> be useful dos's and .01% might just be the thing that turns $'s into #'s.
> Say saying 'lol xor eax, eax mov [eax], 0x01234567... trash' is a bit
> silly
>

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/