-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Josh Dukes wrote:
Mr. Mustache,
As an emacs user I naturally have a very large beard, and as such am
inclined to disagree with you slightly. Though I recognize and respect
your facial hair, I do believe that the development of fuzzing
frameworks is a valid pursuit. The use of frameworks developed by
oneself, or one's security group would be a perfectly valid use.
Likewise modification and use of another person's framework I would see
as valid (and potentially fun). I would even suggest that it *might* be
valid to use someone else's fuzzing framework against one's own
applications to verify one's work, or to even generally fuzz in a
non-serious way. But I would generally agree that use of someone else's
fuzzing framework, without any modification or deep understanding of
how it work, for serious research, would be a clear misuse of fuzzing
technology in a generally script-kiddish fashion.
That said, I see Which fuzzer on this list will help me find the most
security exploits? as a similar statement to Dear leet h4x0rz, plz
hlp m3 h4x0r t0nz o' stuffs. thx!
So, Bobby, I don't wish to be rude, but please ask questions that add
more value to the conversation. That is to say, research first and ask
questions when you've exhausted your own resources. You will gain more
knowledge and irritate less people.
done.
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 19:58:55 -0600
Valdis' Mustache security.mustache...@gmail.com wrote:
Gabby,
As a general rule, I am opposed to fuzz. Those that are prebuscent and
/ or lack the appropriate testosterone levels to develop full and
bushy facial hair should leave matters to the professionals.
That said, I have been most impressed with the work of the markedly
hairless Mssr. Pedram Amini and his Sulley Fuzzing Framework, located
at http://www.fuzzing.org/wp-content/sulley.zip.
I believe there was a Lebanese gentleman (also notably lacking in
facial hair) from the NSA who created another popular fuzzing tool,
but I believe it was primarily only for crashing Java applications and
developing Python tutorials.
Your humble servant,
The vunts ja Valdis
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM, bobby.mug...@hush.com wrote:
Dear list,
Which fuzzer on this list will help me find the most security
exploits?
Thanks,
-bm
On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 18:37:01 -0500 Jeremy Brown
0xjbrow...@gmail.com wrote:
Don't act like you've gave any constructive advice to anyone in
your life.
Thanks for trolling, please don't come again.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Pete Licoln
pete.lic...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok cool, then keep it up Jeremy.
At least you wont be able to say no one told you.
2009/3/6 Jeremy Brown 0xjbrow...@gmail.com
I consider you a loser, Pete/Julio/Loser.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Pete Licoln
pete.lic...@gmail.com wrote:
Well .. what i say is true.
If you cant argue on the subject then shut the hell up.
2009/3/6 Rubén Camarero rjcamar...@gmail.com
Dont satisfy this idiot with a response, thats what he
likes..
Everybody
knows Petie is a troll on every list just use google
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Jeremy Brown
0xjbrow...@gmail.com
wrote:
The reason anyone writes a fuzzer is to find bugs. Those
that I have
written are of course for the same purpose as the 101
listed: to find
security bugs. Your ideas are as meaningless and unhelpful
as they
have been in the past. You have no goal but to troll and
try to make
people look like fools, but you are clearly the ignorant
one.
What have you ever written? Let us see some of your code to
poke fun
of. If it is as imperfect as you then we'd have a day of
fun.
What's hilarious is that none of them are usefull :)
http://www.milw0rm.com/author/1531
http://www.milw0rm.com/author/1835
90% of the research above were found by fuzzing, and those
are public.
Clearly my fuzzers are useful.
You should really learn the protocol you want to fuzz, and
develop a
strategy before you create anything else.
Although mistakes are inevitable, and seeming how the stuff
I write
are pretty coherent to the protocol, your statements, once
again, are
unjustifiable. The strategy is simple: gather points of
input, fuzz
them, and watch for exceptions. Obviously.
Every fuzzer you've made use the SAME way to fuzz for
differents
app/protocol.
Because using a fuzzing oracle is a very good way to
identify security
bugs. Throwing random data will surely find lots of
programming
errors, but I want a shell.
The only change i see is your last fuzzer .. written in a
different
language, but still the same way ...
Yeah, I wrote it in C, and implemented a fuzzing oracle
that way. I
probably put 100 hours into it, and it gave back some nice
return. As
like the others.
So, what ever your real name is, I will continue to write
fuzzers
and exploits. If you comments are meant to bend my attitude
or
research rather than to troll, you
