win32.pinfi`
in [Anti-Virus]
|
From: Dustin Cook on 13 Dec 2009 14:48 ASCII <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in news:4b1608d8.1655765(a)EBCDIC: > FromTheRafters wrote: >>"tommy" <tommylee9_2000(a)removeyahoo.dropcom> wrote in message >>news:hf0pff$42s$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> >>>> Sometimes the user's choice of client only changes the website's >>>> choice of exploit(s). >>> >>> So scripts aren't the only way to infect somebody's pc from a >>> website. Got any cool links for that type of thing? >> >>http://eval.symantec.com/mktginfo/enterprise/white_papers/b-whitepaper_ >>web_based_attacks_03-2009.en-us.pdf >> > > That link merely describes the theoretical nature of browsing dangers. > affecting grossly under-protected systems or extremely careless users. > I wonder if there's any real danger out there to a hardened system? > I'm still waiting on someone to put up a link that my system can't > handle. It would be at the least, irresponsible for anybody in antimalware to place any link that could harm your computer intentionally. Some things, you will have to locate on your own; if thats really your wish. -- Dustin Cook [Malware Researcher] MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
From: FromTheRafters on 14 Dec 2009 18:02 "ASCII" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:4b2608d5.1160312(a)EBCDIC... > FromTheRafters wrote: >>"ASCII" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message >>news:4b258684.422296(a)EBCDIC... >>Still, your computer consumes data, and that data can be maliciously >>crafted. > > Maybe a better or more accurately defined 'consumption' would be in > order. Data destined by the consumer program's design to be translated and interpreted as program code (a browser extension that runs scripts for example), is the most obvious consumption. Such code can do something undesired by using or abusing functions. Data destined by design to be consumed as data only can influence program flow in undesired ways as well, especially if there are flaws in the consuming program that allows the data to be interpreted as code. Even if the data isn't interpreted as code, it can be used by the consuming program as input (for address arithmetic for example) which can result in DoS conditions like hanging or crashing the program or the OS by memory corruption. Data crafted as a simple DoS attack, while unsophisticated, would still be exploit based malware. > Just utilizing such data doesn't necessarily have to be destructive > regardless > of how it's crafted. No, it doesn't have to be. The thing is that data coming in often gets consumed by more than just the program that the user thinks is consuming it. There are often many opportunities to mishandle data.
From: FromTheRafters on 16 Dec 2009 21:03 "ASCII" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:4b28e87d.8846328(a)EBCDIC... > FromTheRafters wrote: >> >>Sites that host exploit based malware could have a detrimental effect >>on >>a system where the user thinks he can go anywhere and click on >>anything >>because he uses a "secure" browser. Exploits such as the one discussed >>here http://seclists.org/bugtraq/2009/Jul/91 could still ruin your >>day. > > Ruin whose day? Someone as described above. > Went and checked, > yep, > sure enough, > they're talking about MSIE. They mention that IE often uses that dll. It is a system file that other applications than IE can also use. The browser is providing a path (vector) to the vulnerability - but is not insecure (in this context) in and of itself. I'm just saying that it is not always obvious what takes place when clicking a link. Bad things can happen even if the browser itself is secure. > Now, kindly show me the way to an actual threat to > a 'secure' browser. I'm not saying none exist, > just would like to know the limits to my system > so I can tweak my config if needed. I don't know of any off hand, I'm only saying that they can (and probably do) exist.
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Prev: win32.pinfi Next: "Norton Internet Security 2010" customer reviews |