« A Minimalist View of Security | Main | Response to Schneier on Full Disclosure »

Undercover Vulnerability List - Request for Updates

There has been a bit of activity on one of my old undercover vulnerability list pages. Here is the current list but I am fairly sure it is outdated. Note that these are undercover vulnerabilities that were discovered (by the good guys) via an exploit in the wild.

Anyway, here is the current list:

20 total since 1988.

Honorable Mention (which don't quite make the list because the vulnerability information was not discovered due to an active exploit):

  • RealServer ../../../ overflow
  • Any of the Immunity VSC releases (Mac OS X Kernel Local, anyone?)
  • Samba bug that HDM got hacked with... [this may get elevated, I am not sure]
  • [Credits: Dave Aitel and Anton Chuvakin for the information]

Definitions:

Undercover Vulnerability: A vulnerability that was generally unknown (e.g. not published on any lists, not discussed by "above ground" security folks) until it was actively exploited in the wild. The vulnerability was discovered through evidence of tampering or other means, not through the usual bugfinding ritual.

Undercover Exploit: The event and/or code used to compromise a resource running the vulnerable software in the wild.

*Note: the "credit" given is not to the person who discovered the exploit/vuln, but to the person who pointed me in the right direction. Thanks, all.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345207f669e200e553fab9fb8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Undercover Vulnerability List - Request for Updates:

» Undercover Exploits and Vulnerabilities - 10-27-08 from Spire Security Viewpoint
Looks like we have a confirmed addition to the undercover exploit list (old list). That makes 21 total since 1988. 10/27/08 - MS08-067 RPC vulnerability (public info). 11/23/07 - Xunlei Thunder PPlayer ActiveX control (credit: Symantec*) 4/5/07 - DNS R... [Read More]

Comments

"Undercover"? I've never heard that term before in relation to a vulnerability or exploit... Don't you mean "0day"? If so, why are you trying to coin new terminology for things which already have well-established terminology for them?

Fun Fact: Once it's discovered in the wild and disclosed to the public, such as to a 'undercover list page', it's no longer 0day.

@Druid -

I think 0day would have been a great term except it got abused a few years back and so now people think of something other than what I mean. Many people consider "0day vulnerabilities" those vulnerabilities that don't have a patch available when they are disclosed, regardless of how they are discovered. (There are plenty of so-called "0days" that have never actually been exploited.)

I think "0day vulnerability" is a misnomer because 0day implies an attack, not simply a vuln.

Anyway, undercover vulnerabilities are only those vulns that were identified due to exploits in the wild - a subset of the common 0day definition (though I would dispute the notion that it is well-established).

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment