[39741] in bugtraq
Re: On classifying attacks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dustin D. Trammell)
Tue Jul 19 17:59:44 2005
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="=-mefpkHpXCSUoX20vPJ37"
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:24:39 -0500
Message-ID: <1121790279.1298.123.camel@localhost>
From: "Dustin D. Trammell" <dtrammell@citadel.com>
To: "Crispin Cowan" <crispin@novell.com>
Cc: "James Longstreet" <jlongs2@uic.edu>, "Derek Martin" <code@pizzashack.org>,
<bugtraq@securityfocus.com>
--=-mefpkHpXCSUoX20vPJ37
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 01:58 -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote:
> Yet none of them capture the distinction Derek pointed out, and so
> perhaps we need a new term. We could say that attacks against connected
> programs like BIND and Gaim are "synchronous" and attacks that involve
> sending now for impact later such as e-mailed malware are "asynchronous".
I have seen the terms "active" and "passive" used quite frequently to
differentiate between these two conditions.
--=20
Dustin D. Trammell
Vulnerability Remediation Alchemist
Citadel Security Software, Inc.
--=-mefpkHpXCSUoX20vPJ37
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBC3SlHvzar7QVmz2YRAsUTAJ49l+6caWkyeKIGXYIX8q1sdVHSjwCglhkd
f7aYpf9pVv/j9V2c6NNwsaw=
=P8HH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-mefpkHpXCSUoX20vPJ37--
