full-disclosure-uk January 2010 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > full-disclosure-uk archives
full-disclosure-uk: Re: [Full-disclosure] All China, All The Tim

Re: [Full-disclosure] All China, All The Time

From: Christian Sciberras <uuf6429_at_nospam>
Date: Fri Jan 15 2010 - 18:55:01 GMT
To: Benji <me@b3nji.com>


Physical keys. There's like over 100 different keys in the whole complex... Sure, helpful to know about the needle in a haystack. The question is, how much is needed to sift through that haystack. One day "evil maid" approach is ok, a couple of days "evil technician", possibly, but I doubt anyone wouldn't notice the intrusion.

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Benji <me@b3nji.com> wrote:
> I'll put it this way.
>
> Im an attacker in your network, trying to get access to your "most sensitive
> information". Ive identified the server that stores this information and Im
> looking around for keys/passwords etc etc etc.
>
> Are you saying it wouldnt help me to know that I needed 5 keys, thus
> pointing me towards what to look for?
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> No, that was actually configuration description; best of luck finding
>> our facility.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Benji <me@b3nji.com> wrote:
>> > Actually you were boasting, it was irrelevant to have what you have as a
>> > security precausion. Infact, one could argue that you were making your
>> > setup
>> > insecure by telling people how you're secured from the get go.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> My question was mostly rhetoric, I tried to imply the point on why
>> >> computers with sensitive information were;
>> >> 1. not fully up to date (=>from the top of my had, the exploit had
>> >> several issues in non-standard browser versions?)
>> >> 2. running internet explorer (=>more known as a target, nothing against
>> >> MSIE)
>> >> 3. used to surf the web (=>why else would you be using IE [rhetoric])
>> >> 4. not monitored correctly (=>our most sensitive information is stored
>> >> in a server locked up 5 times, the only way to get in is either
>> >> getting all the keys or through a remote exploit*)
>> >>
>> >> I think the above points violate a couple of rules in security
>> >> auditing.
>> >>
>> >> * I'm not boasting about our configuration; this is very easy to
>> >> achieve in a company of 5 and one server rack.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Peter Besenbruch <prb@lava.net> wrote:
>> >> > On Thursday 14 January 2010 21:49:05 Christian Sciberras wrote:
>> >> >> "They used an IE exploit to get in."
>> >> >> The people at *Google* use *IE*?!! Besides, how does an exploit in
>> >> >> IE
>> >> >> affect the server?
>> >> >
>> >> > It would affect a person with login rights to a server.
>> >> >
>> >> > This wasn't just an attack on Google, btw, it was an attack on 32
>> >> > different
>> >> > companies.
>> >> > --
>> >> > Hawaiian Astronomical Society: http://www.hawastsoc.org
>> >> > HAS Deepsky Atlas: http://www.hawastsoc.org/deepsky
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>> >> > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>> >> > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>> >> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>> >> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>> >
>> >
>
>



Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/