you see i do not agree with this because you are relying on other bugs to make xss useful and again you are relying on interaction from the user.
any bug that requires another (form of) bug to be useful or that requires user interaction is inherently weaker then then other "any time" bugs like bof/sql injection/whatever On Nov 4, 2007 5:16 PM, pdp (architect) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > well valid point. XSS can alway be used as a career to whatever kind > of attack you have in there. Just imagine the MySpace XSS warm > combined with the IE VML or one of these ActiveX bugs that allow you > to write into arbitery files on the file system (so that it is not a > software bug). Hmmm? > > On Nov 4, 2007 11:51 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What about when xss leads to stack overflows and command injections? > See http://xs-sniper.com. It would seem that if you subscribe to the > thought that only attacks that take over a victims computer are valid, then > you would have to now admit xss as valid as well. > > > > Nate > > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: reepex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 13:26:17 > > To:full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk, "pdp (architect)" < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: [Full-disclosure] on xss and its technical merit > > > > > > Pdp architect and I have been emailing back and forth about whether xss > has a place in fd, bugtraq, or the security research area at all. He decided > that we should start a discussion about in on here and gets peoples > unmoderated opinion. This discussion should not concern whether its > important due to stealing bank info, paypal, whatever it should only stick > to xss as a pure research area. Or as pdp described it: > > > > "we are talking about whether XSS is as technical as other security > disciplines. We are also talking about whether it should have a deserved an > recognized place among FD readers and contributers. however, the topic wont > cover only whether you can detect or inject XSS, this is lame. it will cover > the whole 9 yards... pretty much all the topics covered inside the XSS > book." > > > > My ideas on the topic are > > > > 1) XSS isnt techincal no matter how its used > > 2) people who use xss on pentests/real hacking/anything but phishing are > lame and only use it because they cannot write real exploits (non-web) or > couldnt find any other web bugs (sql injection, cmd exec,file include, > whatever) > > 3) XSS does not have a place on this list or any other security list and > i remember when the idea of making a seperate bugtraq for xss was proposed > and i still think it should be done. > > 4) if you go into a pentest/audit and all you get out is xss then its a > failed pentest and the customer should get a refund. > > 5) publishing xss shows your weakness and that you dont have the ability > to find actual bugs ( b/c xss isnt a vuln its crap ) > > > > i think pdp is going to respond first. should be fun ;) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > > > > > -- > pdp (architect) | petko d. petkov > http://www.gnucitizen.org >
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
