Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. Please nitpick the following (or suggest an authority, such as NIST or CISA )

Please nitpick the following (or suggest an authority, such as NIST or CISA )

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
17 Posts 9 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • adamshostack@infosec.exchangeA adamshostack@infosec.exchange

    Please nitpick the following (or suggest an authority, such as NIST or CISA )

    A vulnerability is a weakness that can be exploited to gain some goal or milestone for an attacker, such as the ability to run code. Vulnerabilities are usually bugs which get patched, and weaknesses are a broader set that includes susceptibility to threats. Code which demonstrates that a vulnerability is exploitable is called “proof-of-concept” or PoC. A PoC may be developed into an exploit, which is code that actually achieves that goal. Weaponized exploit code has been made production-ready with reliability or integration into some attack framework. The attackers may be not be malicious, for example external researchers or penetration testers.

    raboof@merveilles.townR This user is from outside of this forum
    raboof@merveilles.townR This user is from outside of this forum
    raboof@merveilles.town
    wrote last edited by
    #7

    @adamshostack sounds about right. I like the definition from the @CVE_Program glossary as well, https://www.cve.org/ResourcesSupport/Glossary#glossaryVulnerability - especially how they explicitly mention the security policy.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • cford@toot.thoughtworks.comC cford@toot.thoughtworks.com

      @adamshostack Would it make sense to say that a vulnerability can be exploited to attain some goal or achieve further compromise? Or is that what you mean by "milestone"?

      adamshostack@infosec.exchangeA This user is from outside of this forum
      adamshostack@infosec.exchangeA This user is from outside of this forum
      adamshostack@infosec.exchange
      wrote last edited by
      #8

      @cford that is what i meant by milestone. I think it's misleading to claim that there are people who care about controlling EiP. They care about something else and that's a stepping stone along the way

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • mattblaze@federate.socialM mattblaze@federate.social

        @adamshostack Nitpick: This seems to imply a progression from a PoC demo (something generally produced with the aim demonstrating a bug so it can be fixed) to actual exploit code. While that can certainly happen, we don't know that that distinction is always present for malicious exploits (it's only one path).

        Also, people react to the term "weaponize". It carries some baggage. It doesn't particularly bother me, but some people dislike it.

        adamshostack@infosec.exchangeA This user is from outside of this forum
        adamshostack@infosec.exchangeA This user is from outside of this forum
        adamshostack@infosec.exchange
        wrote last edited by
        #9

        @mattblaze thanks! I thought about productize, bit not all 'fully developed' exploits are in products. do you have a better term handy?

        mattblaze@federate.socialM 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • heiglandreas@phpc.socialH heiglandreas@phpc.social

          @adamshostack I know. I was asking myself that question every time I answer Bug-Bounty reports.

          NIST defines it quite well in https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln - but that definition focuses on the attacked party and the impact on them.

          Which is why I asked....

          adamshostack@infosec.exchangeA This user is from outside of this forum
          adamshostack@infosec.exchangeA This user is from outside of this forum
          adamshostack@infosec.exchange
          wrote last edited by
          #10

          @heiglandreas Yeah, I looked at that, and frankly, respond really negatively to "a negative impact to confidentiality, integrity, or availability" ; I've never found C/I/A to be that useful around RCE

          heiglandreas@phpc.socialH 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • adamshostack@infosec.exchangeA adamshostack@infosec.exchange

            @mattblaze thanks! I thought about productize, bit not all 'fully developed' exploits are in products. do you have a better term handy?

            mattblaze@federate.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
            mattblaze@federate.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
            mattblaze@federate.social
            wrote last edited by
            #11

            @adamshostack "Fieldable"

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • adamshostack@infosec.exchangeA adamshostack@infosec.exchange

              Please nitpick the following (or suggest an authority, such as NIST or CISA )

              A vulnerability is a weakness that can be exploited to gain some goal or milestone for an attacker, such as the ability to run code. Vulnerabilities are usually bugs which get patched, and weaknesses are a broader set that includes susceptibility to threats. Code which demonstrates that a vulnerability is exploitable is called “proof-of-concept” or PoC. A PoC may be developed into an exploit, which is code that actually achieves that goal. Weaponized exploit code has been made production-ready with reliability or integration into some attack framework. The attackers may be not be malicious, for example external researchers or penetration testers.

              benaveling@infosec.exchangeB This user is from outside of this forum
              benaveling@infosec.exchangeB This user is from outside of this forum
              benaveling@infosec.exchange
              wrote last edited by
              #12

              Some vulnerabilities can't be exploited in ways that lead to attacker success, e.g. the next/previous line of defense is sound, but they're still vulnerabilities in that they allow one or more lines of defense to be bypassed.
              I'd also ask:
              - do bugs usually get patched?
              - is this definition supposed to cover social-engineering or insider threats?
              - is this definition supposed to cover volumetric DOS?

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • adamshostack@infosec.exchangeA adamshostack@infosec.exchange

                @heiglandreas Yeah, I looked at that, and frankly, respond really negatively to "a negative impact to confidentiality, integrity, or availability" ; I've never found C/I/A to be that useful around RCE

                heiglandreas@phpc.socialH This user is from outside of this forum
                heiglandreas@phpc.socialH This user is from outside of this forum
                heiglandreas@phpc.social
                wrote last edited by
                #13

                @adamshostack well does RCE not negatively influence integrity and confidentiality?

                I mean... when someone can execurlte anything on a server, then integrity is compromised and confidentiality can't be guaranteed... 🤷

                adamshostack@infosec.exchangeA 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • mattblaze@federate.socialM mattblaze@federate.social

                  @adamshostack Nitpick: This seems to imply a progression from a PoC demo (something generally produced with the aim demonstrating a bug so it can be fixed) to actual exploit code. While that can certainly happen, we don't know that that distinction is always present for malicious exploits (it's only one path).

                  Also, people react to the term "weaponize". It carries some baggage. It doesn't particularly bother me, but some people dislike it.

                  0xd0ug@infosec.exchange0 This user is from outside of this forum
                  0xd0ug@infosec.exchange0 This user is from outside of this forum
                  0xd0ug@infosec.exchange
                  wrote last edited by
                  #14

                  @adamshostack Another nitpick: consider changing “gain” to “reach” or “achieve”.

                  I agree with Prof. @mattblaze about “weaponize”. It’s my preferred alternative, but his suggestion “fieldable” works fine. Also consider “operational” or “operationalized” as alternatives closer to “weaponized”.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • heiglandreas@phpc.socialH heiglandreas@phpc.social

                    @adamshostack well does RCE not negatively influence integrity and confidentiality?

                    I mean... when someone can execurlte anything on a server, then integrity is compromised and confidentiality can't be guaranteed... 🤷

                    adamshostack@infosec.exchangeA This user is from outside of this forum
                    adamshostack@infosec.exchangeA This user is from outside of this forum
                    adamshostack@infosec.exchange
                    wrote last edited by
                    #15

                    @heiglandreas It absolutely does, but in a nuanced way that's far less salient than say, "pwned."

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • adamshostack@infosec.exchangeA adamshostack@infosec.exchange

                      Please nitpick the following (or suggest an authority, such as NIST or CISA )

                      A vulnerability is a weakness that can be exploited to gain some goal or milestone for an attacker, such as the ability to run code. Vulnerabilities are usually bugs which get patched, and weaknesses are a broader set that includes susceptibility to threats. Code which demonstrates that a vulnerability is exploitable is called “proof-of-concept” or PoC. A PoC may be developed into an exploit, which is code that actually achieves that goal. Weaponized exploit code has been made production-ready with reliability or integration into some attack framework. The attackers may be not be malicious, for example external researchers or penetration testers.

                      fennix@infosec.spaceF This user is from outside of this forum
                      fennix@infosec.spaceF This user is from outside of this forum
                      fennix@infosec.space
                      wrote last edited by
                      #16

                      @adamshostack

                      I would include under the umbrella of weakness "lack of observability."

                      It's a definite weakness if there's no monitoring in place to alert on obvious suspicious behaviour, and I don't see that accounted for in what's written.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • adamshostack@infosec.exchangeA adamshostack@infosec.exchange

                        Please nitpick the following (or suggest an authority, such as NIST or CISA )

                        A vulnerability is a weakness that can be exploited to gain some goal or milestone for an attacker, such as the ability to run code. Vulnerabilities are usually bugs which get patched, and weaknesses are a broader set that includes susceptibility to threats. Code which demonstrates that a vulnerability is exploitable is called “proof-of-concept” or PoC. A PoC may be developed into an exploit, which is code that actually achieves that goal. Weaponized exploit code has been made production-ready with reliability or integration into some attack framework. The attackers may be not be malicious, for example external researchers or penetration testers.

                        d3tm4r@infosec.exchangeD This user is from outside of this forum
                        d3tm4r@infosec.exchangeD This user is from outside of this forum
                        d3tm4r@infosec.exchange
                        wrote last edited by
                        #17

                        @adamshostack nails it pretty well imo

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        1
                        0
                        Reply
                        • Reply as topic
                        Log in to reply
                        • Oldest to Newest
                        • Newest to Oldest
                        • Most Votes


                        • Login

                        • Login or register to search.
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        0
                        • Categories
                        • Recent
                        • Tags
                        • Popular
                        • World
                        • Users
                        • Groups