Re: [Full-disclosure] All China, All The Time

[Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@xxxxxxxxx>]

My question was mostly rhetoric, I tried to imply the point on why
computers with sensitive information were;
1. not fully up to date (=>from the top of my had, the exploit had
several issues in non-standard browser versions?)
2. running internet explorer (=>more known as a target, nothing against MSIE)
3. used to surf the web (=>why else would you be using IE [rhetoric])
4. not monitored correctly (=>our most sensitive information is stored
in a server locked up 5 times, the only way to get in is either
getting all the keys or through a remote exploit*)

I think the above points violate a couple of rules in security auditing.

* I'm not boasting about our configuration; this is very easy to
achieve in a company of 5 and one server rack.


On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Peter Besenbruch <prb@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thursday 14 January 2010 21:49:05 Christian Sciberras wrote:
>> "They used an IE exploit to get in."
>> The people at *Google* use *IE*?!! Besides, how does an exploit in IE
>> affect the server?
>
> It would affect a person with login rights to a server.
>
> This wasn't just an attack on Google, btw, it was an attack on 32 different
> companies.
> --
> Hawaiian Astronomical Society: http://www.hawastsoc.org
> HAS Deepsky Atlas: http://www.hawastsoc.org/deepsky
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

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