[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Netscape Logic Bomb detailed by IETF

In message <[email protected]>, Dr. Frederick B. Cohen writes:
>I strongly disagree.  If Netscape provided a way to execute shell
>commands on your host from a remote computer, it would certainly be a
>hole created by their product.  The fact that the default shell is
>potentially dangerous means it's incumbant on those who provide access
>to it to provide adequate protection.

They do, add:

application/x-shell; sh %s

to your .mailcap.

They had better stop supporting mailcap alltogether, after all *any*
of the programs in there could have buffer overflows, or other
security problems.  I'll bet some of them even do, anyone want to
see if sox (a program that transforms sound files from format to
format - frequently used to convert .wav files to .au files) has
any overruns in the chunk handling code?

>If Netscape wants to claim their product doesn't degrade security, they
>should provide a safe postscript interpreter or not provide hooks to
>unsafe ones.

Sure, and they had better find a way to keep us from editing the binary
and adding whatever insecure features we may want to their program.

obcrypto: mabie it would be a good idea for programs to list problems that
are beoynd their control.  To many people it may be supprising that anything
in their .mailcap could hurt them.  To others it is hardly a shock and seeing
alot of messages about it tends to get rather boreing, esp. as a few people
jump up and down and yell about the Danger To Us All...