×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Black Hat Talk Demonstrates New Document Exploits

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the send-you-this-file-in-order-to-have-your-advice dept.

Security 60

darthcamaro writes "Remember the days of the viruses embedded in email attachments? They're coming back, according to a pair of researcher talking at Black Hat this week: '"If you have installed all Microsoft Office patches and there are no 0 day vulnerabilities, will it be safe to open a Word or Excel document?" TT asked the audience. "The answer is no."'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

60 comments

Is this really news? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37009616)

Anybody worth their salt knows that any attachment can be dangerous. You can hide all sorts of things in them. Especially for files that allow arbitrary things to be embedded in them, like Word documents.

Re:Is this really news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37018496)

The tall UGG boots classic snow will be an ideal choice of this year
A uggs online [ugg-online.org] stylish. Now, you can find quite a number of color and lovely print a number on the market. These tall boots, and classic tall shaft up just below the knees of has a simple elegant appearance. In fact can wear these boots vamp cuff create a interesting sheepskin around an the top edge of the appearance and add more elegant and women's fashion watch. This kind of style is really eternal and perfect any type of jeans, shorts, short skirt, to cooperate with a look of color to begin. In particular, it can be used as the perfect cooperation and a fur coat. Due to the color of the skins dyed, whatever you can think of, you can always find UGG are your perfect choice, finish your fashionable appearance. If uggs boots [cheap-outlet.org] you are a UGG lover, you will know some classic UGG color natural chestnuts, elegant grey, sand, brown and black, like chocolate, this is the ultimate personal comfortable UGG have won global popularity in these eternal tonal. The classic color, everyone can be a great combination, classic look and feel, from the UGG Australia only. For example, bright, natural sand color, can go to you the most romantic appearance, especially on the beach, or in all the ugg online [ugg-online.org] bonfire party. UGG this year, more rich and colorful classic tall tonal, navy, tile, sunflower, like, these never short-term shadow any a stylish will be perfect. Just think, a girl in a pair of classic UGG high fireworks design, soft flow on the behavior of the dark brown color, in the pink face and her cooperation. It is really a little guys fashionable appearance! The time and place of shorts. Time is in the 18 and 21 years old of birthday, and between TuoNa beach during spring break generation or in alarm to provide drinks place. If ugg boots [cheap-outlet.org] you do not belong to the magic field, your shorts must cover you ass cheeks. If you look as if it is the wistful swallowed with your pants, you have better service chicken wings and beer to customers, or in the rough "hottest steamed stuffed bun" won the first place in the competition. .TS

Are Adobe .PDF files any better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37030754)

See subject-line above. They're scriptable too. Hence why, for 5++ yrs. now online, I've been telling others to TURN OFF SCRIPTING IN IT (doable in Acrobat Reader's configuration/setup), here:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE [bing.com]

Simply because it poses a MORE THAN POTENTIAL DANGER!

* Scripting ANY document poses this type of threat...

E.G.-> Heck, look @ the web today with its HTML documents being abused with javascript "everywhere" (often needlessly imo), & that in turn, abusing users!

(Scriptable documents in business have their place, but like any programming, it can be abused as a 'double-edged sword' also)

APK

P.S.=> Yes, the same goes for MS stuff, but when you use it you can press the SHIFT KEY while you open Word docs, Excel Sheets, & Access DB's to bypass autoexec macros (just like the old days in DOS to bypass autoexec.bat during bootup, processing ONLY config.sys)

... apk

Well duh... (3, Funny)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#37009624)

Of course it's not safe to open the document. It could be a "Starbuck should be a dude" rant.

Re:Well duh... (3, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#37009698)

"Starbuck should be a dude"

Sir, we're going to have to ask you to leave. Turn in your man card at the front office. You can pick it up on monday at the Men's Rules Enforcement Department off 7th street. You'll need to explain to them why you, as a heterosexual male, asked to replace a hot female actress with a pudgy male one. Depending on your answer, there may be a fine.

Thank You,

The Internetz

Re:Well duh... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37010282)

asked to replace a hot female actress with a pudgy male one.

Why he gotta be pudgy? Can't he be a hot Jack Harkness-style Starbuck?

Some of us long for the days when the only women in science fiction were the ones with three breasts on the cover of Del Ray paperbacks.

Three nicely-shaped breasts.

Re:Well duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37010430)

"Starbuck should be a dude"

You'll need to explain to them why you, as a heterosexual male, asked to replace a hot female actress with a pudgy male one.

Because two male pilots could have a babe each.

Re:Well duh... (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#37012468)

Because having a hot babe you want to bang be your wingman in a bar is just.....well weird? The reason Apollo and Starbuck worked well together was Apollo could be kind of a stick in the mud so Stabuck would come and bail his ass out with the jokes, as a good wingman should. Hot babe? not only will hot babe make it worse but it will make dude in trouble look even MORE lame, not less.

As for TFA... attachments are bad mmmkay? what sucks is how many years have we been trying to drum this into users heads? I know I have since the days of Win 95 and Outhouse Excrement. I have actually sat beside a user and said "DO NOT open that password protected zip, are you nuts? Its a virus!" only to get told "Awww you worry too much! Its from my BFF Kim see? She wouldn't do that" and damned if she didn't do EXACTLY what the email told her to with me practically trying to throw myself in front of the keyboard. That is why as a PC repairman i have this face [www.meh.ro] as my standard face every. single. day.

Re:Well duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37056254)

You say that because you never had a hot babe be your wing(wo)man. Otherwise you'd appreciated them pulling chicks for you like crazy!
Seriously, there is nothing better than a woman who's on your side to pick up chicks with! Because she knows exactly when to close, and what to say to whom when, and will tell you so. While all the girls think: Wow, if he can get such a hot girl, he must be quite something special. And you do the same for her. (Ok, it's better if you're hot youself. But that's not hard if you're constantly motivated to work out and care for yourself by that hot fermale friend and those babes you bang.)

Think of her as a spy on the other side, working for you.

If you can't appreciate a getting-laid-guarantee, then I'm really sorry for you.

Re:Well duh... (3, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#37009708)

Of course it's not safe to open a document when running Windows. My Ubuntu desktop Linux operating system never gets viruses no matter what I open, because it uses a robust security model with actual file permissions. For example, instead of simply clicking "yes" to everything, I also have to enter my password so I know I give things a second thought before executing them.

Of course, even if Linux just had a Yes/No dialog, I could click "yes" until I'm blue in the face and my system would never get a single virus because it's Linux and Linux doesn't get viruses. UNIX doesn't get viruses either. Even Mac's get viruses because they're based on a phone operating system(I/OS) and phone operating systems are made easy to exploit because AT&T have to spy on people for the government.

Be safe. Be sensible. Be Linux.

Re:Well duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37009790)

I think your comment could be used as a great basis for some troll copypasta.

Re:Well duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37009826)

To really check if you don't have any viruses on your Ubuntu box, just run

cat /dev/urandom > /dev/sda

It's way faster than clicking a bunch of Yes/No dialogs.

Re:Well duh... (1)

John Bresnahan (638668) | more than 2 years ago | (#37009848)

When I tried this, it just said "Permission denied".

I must be doing it wrong.

Re:Well duh... (2)

cynyr (703126) | more than 2 years ago | (#37009950)

the AC forgot to turn that into a ubuntu style tip...

sudo cat /dev/urandom > /dev/sda

That should do it for the unbuntu people.

for the rest of every body, clearly this needs to run as root.

Re:Well duh... (2)

stderr_dk (902007) | more than 2 years ago | (#37010814)

sudo cat /dev/urandom > /dev/sda

I don't have an Ubuntu-box (or other "sudo"-using box) at hand, so can't test it myself, but doesn't the shell try to open /dev/sda before trying to execute sudo? In other words: Before you got root permission.

I.e. the same reason sort foo >foo gives you an empty file.

Maybe something like
cat /dev/urandom | sudo tee /dev/sda >/dev/null
would work. I think, I used something like that last time I had to work around the shell opening std{in,out,err} before executing commands.

Re:Well duh... (1)

Derek Pomery (2028) | more than 2 years ago | (#37013886)

sudo sh -c "cat /dev/urandom > /dev/sda"

There you go.
That's also necessary in ubuntu 11.04 if you need to attach gdb to a running process...

sudo sh -c "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/yama/ptrace_scope"

Re:Well duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37010180)

To really check if you don't have any viruses on your Ubuntu box, just run

cat /dev/urandom > /dev/sda

It's way faster than clicking a bunch of Yes/No dialogs.

sorry dude the correct Ubuntu way to get a virus is "sudo dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sda"
Even so you still have to insert your password!

of course you can always run at the same time just for fun

#bin.sh :(){ :|: & };:

Point of all this silliness is that you can hose your 'puter no matter what the OS is just it is one heck of a lot easier to re- install a linux distro than to install Windows or Mac OS for that matter. And there is no friggin' way to create an effective worm or virus from an executable data file like an e-mail without doing social engineering and convincing the Linux user to do something really stupid. Something which is all too easy to do in the wonderful wacky world of Microsoft Office Software.

Re:Well duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37010428)

Seeing as the WWW is 20 years old some dude messing about with the sendmail programme created a worm which went around causing problems. This showed that UNIX was a more pwoerful OS than the other ones around at the time and how clever and creative its users were. Before this such unwanted behavior was blamed on Rabbits.

Re:Well duh... (1)

Yamioni (2424602) | more than 2 years ago | (#37035664)

Point of all this silliness is that you can hose your 'puter no matter what the OS is just it is one heck of a lot easier to re- install a linux distro than to install Windows or Mac OS for that matter.

Lacking experience with Mac OS I do not speak for it. However regarding optimized installs (Silent installs using scripts to select all options beforehand and remove user interaction) Windows 7 will install on my home machine in about 20 minutes and Random Linux Distro in 15-20. If you really need that 5 minutes, you probably should have made images and restored from those instead of reinstalling in the first place. I'll concede that Windows played 2nd fiddle to other OSes with regard to install time for pretty much all of recent history, but Microsoft has made great strides in making it much much much faster than it used to be. Saying that Linux is "a heck of a lot easier" to reinstall now simply isn't true.

Yami

it could be worse... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37010318)

Of course it's not safe to open the document. It could be a "Starbuck should be a dude" rant.

It could be a "everything is an act of God is a total cop out" rant.

At least I'm safe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37009676)

I'm not connected to the internet. Workaround that!

Re:At least I'm safe (2)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 2 years ago | (#37009710)

I'm not connected to the internet. Workaround that!

If you did, then others can.

Re:At least I'm safe (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#37009774)

If you did, then others can.

Well yeah, but it's unlikely others will be able to match the level of stupidity displayed by making a statement on a website stating they don't have internet. I mean, certain customer service representatives, perhaps... like the kind that e-mail you your new password after you tell them you're locked out of your e-mail account. But it's unlikely they'd be able to find slashdot if you gave them the name and set google as their homepage, so YMMV.

Re:At least I'm safe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37011540)

I've got moderator points, but there's no whooosh option....

Re:At least I'm safe (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37009730)

I'm not connected to the internet. Workaround that!

USB stick? Do you install software? Play music from CD? Video from DVD? Send posts to /.?

At least you THINK you're safe! :-)

Re:At least I'm safe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37013026)

He is of course posting to /. via Jedi mind control or maybe there is a snail mail to /. post proxy

In other news... (1, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#37009740)

In other news, embedding executable code into data files still considered stupid. Researchers continue to emphasize that executable code should only exist in (wait for it) -- executable files!

Now, we all understand that Intel and Microsoft had drunken money sex one evening and out of that relationship DOS was born... a retarded child that couldn't tell the difference between its food (the data) and the plate (executable code), and regularly ate both.

I'm just wondering why we're still entertaining this 'precious snowflake' and it's plate-eating habits twenty years on. Didn't we learn from the retarded kid that isolating data from executable code from the hardware level up was the Right Thing?

Did someone say Blackhat, retard, and Microsoft? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37009852)

Remember that when Microsoft forced DOS on the world, it set-back computers 20 years to re-invent what all-American non-offshorable companies already did with VMS and Solaris.

If DOS was a demographic of society, it is a Blackhat operating system immortalized by this image.

http://images.4chon.net/new/src/1312615843259.jpg [4chon.net]

Re:Did someone say Blackhat, retard, and Microsoft (2)

kvvbassboy (2010962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37009912)

NSFW image! Mod down!

JIDF detected! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37009928)

You must be the one that brought-down http://leetchan.org/ [leetchan.org] aren't you? Vile internationalist fiend!

>NSFW image! Mod down!

Re:Did someone say Blackhat, retard, and Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37017240)

Yeah, so, who works on Saturday?

(if you do, do yourself a favor and don't answer. I'll just laugh at you for working on Saturdays. suckers.)

Re:Did someone say Blackhat, retard, and Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37010766)

Wow, I like hairy chubby women! Who's she??

Re:In other news... (4, Interesting)

networkzombie (921324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37009926)

Your argument restricting executable code covers a variety of technologies from OLE to html email. The same reason these technologies suck is also why they are so popular. On one hand you can embed stuff and do more! On the other hand they can embed stuff and do more.

Re:In other news... (4, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37009972)

A lot of the time that executable code is to do shinystuff, like embed fancy animated charts in documents. One of the worst cases of all is in Windows Media, which will happily run scripts (Exploitable scripts) in media files without prompting or informing the user - and will do this based on magic bytes to identify filetype rather than extension. This lead to the proliferation of fake-mp3 malware on p2p networks. The purpose of the scripts is to allow for updating of the DRM technology and to allow for unauthorised media files to automatically direct the player to a website to purchase a licence.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37013424)

DRM fucks the customer again? The hell you say!

Re:In other news... (2)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 2 years ago | (#37013520)

I've seen a lot of fake media files require you to purchase a licence you get a "this requires a licence, do you want to retreive it" type yes/no dialogue and only take you to a website on a yes click.

I'm calling BS on your claim it does anything more than this. If MP3s were exploitable outside of encouraging you to visit a questionable site, you'd see a whole lot more malware infected MP3s sent as email attatchments. It's not unthinkable this could be exploited but I doubt it's any easier exploting that than just generally finding a vulnerability in a common codec. Especially with DEP and ASR.

Re:In other news... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37016220)

I do confess to never having encountered such a file myself, but I have heard from others who have claimed that the file infected them with some form of malware. A likely explanation would be that the website is the true location of the exploit - I imagine WMP would open IE to get the license, which means any scammer not only has a way to lure in visitors but also knows what browser they'll be using and thus what exploits to use.

MP3 files are not the problem ones. It's WMA/WMV/ASF (all the same internally). The extension is merely changed to make the file look more tempting, as most pirates are looking for mp3 files. WMP doesn't use extension to identify files, so it doesn't care.

As for the scripts, I think I can answer that. I actually wrote an ASF header study tool years ago, and I believe I recall it... I shall just find the specification from MS.

http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/9/0/790fecaa-f64a-4a5e-a430-0bccdab3f1b4/ASF_Specification.doc [microsoft.com]

That's completly useless, by the way. Microsoft has the format patented, and has threatened to sue at least one independent developer (of Virtualdub) for implimenting it without agreeing to their very restrictive (You can read it, note that is specifically prohibits releasing the source of any implimentation) license. If you go to section 3.6, script command object... there it is. Scripting support, of a very limited form. The actual script commands available are not defined by the ASF specification, but left to the specific implimentation. WMP includes at least the 'open URL' and 'open a specified media file' commands, as those are given as examples, but I don't know just how powerful ASF scripting is.

Note that ASF, WMA and WMV are identical formats. The extension is merely a convenience to allow video files to be more easily told from purely audio.

Re:In other news... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37010084)

In other news, embedding executable code into data files still considered stupid.

Nobody designing data file formats is actually putting in official ways to run executable code. The ability to do that comes entirely from implementation bugs. And no, embedded scripting languages don't count - they're not intended to be able to affect anything outside the document; when they can, it's again always the result of an implementation bug.

Re:In other news... (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#37011060)

Embedded scripts certainly DO count! You can RUN them can't you? When you do, they do what the writer wanted, don't they?

Of course they're not INTENDED to be able to affect anything outside, but in over 10 years, nobody has yet been able to stop them. That's called a failure. Perhaps it's time to rip that 'feature' out.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37013408)

Of course they're not INTENDED to be able to affect anything outside, but in over 10 years, nobody has yet been able to stop them.

The new OS X 10.7 security model goes a long way to stopping that sort of thing. There's a good description of it in the Ars Technica review.

Re:In other news... (2)

inglorion_on_the_net (1965514) | more than 2 years ago | (#37014286)

There line between code and data is rather fuzzy. In the end, both are big lumps of bytes that will be processed by some software, which will then cause your computer to take certain actions. The problem is that the software processing the bytes will often happily allow things to happen that would generally be considered undesirable (e.g. sending spam).

In my view, the problem of malware is so persistent, because the vast majority of software vendors have an insecure by default approach. Software is developed in unsafe languages (allowing exploits like buffer overruns), runs on operating systems that will happily run any code they are told to run, and we are trying to secure this mess by patching the holes after they are found.

If we wrote software in languages that were memory-safe, this would prevent attacks such as embedding executable code in data files, and getting it to run through buffer overruns. If we used whitelists for software that is allowed to run (I imagine this like the repositories in Debian/Ubuntu/..., where you can choose your own trusted providers), this would stop untrusted code from running.

This would bring us closer to secure by default, where you would have to do extra work to make your system insecure, instead of having to constantly fight an uphill battle to keep up some semblance of security.

It's not a virus, and require user approval (0)

walternate (2210674) | more than 2 years ago | (#37009822)

First: What is described is not a virus but a trojan. And as noted in the article, in IE8 and IE9 the user will get an access prompt and specifically would have to approve it to run.

Will some click ok and run the trojan? Most probably, but that is a different kind of problem for all platforms. If I open a Word document and suddenly IE9 pop ups with an access request to run something, the answer would be no thanks.

Re:It's not a virus, and require user approval (1)

nonades (1053946) | more than 2 years ago | (#37010096)

Will some click ok and run the trojan? Most probably, but that is a different kind of problem for all platforms. If I open a Word document and suddenly IE9 pop ups with an access request to run something, the answer *should* be no thanks.

FTFY

Re:It's not a virus, and require user approval (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37013160)

I remember working in a developer support team for a software component company
So we were all programmers, and thus computer literate ...
Strange mails started popping up, so we knew something was wrong ...
Like someone in the non-technical departments was infected opening a mail from an infected friend lol
A guy from the IT help desk comes and says: do not click on the attachments!
Almost everyone answered something like: is it a virus? who got it? and so on ...
Except one guy, who asked with a feeble voice: we should not click on what?
lol
He just got a stern look from everybody else, and an "unplug your machine from the network and wait!"
lol
He just had the habit of clicking on everything indiscriminately, like a noob
Nobody's perfect I guess
lol

Re:It's not a virus, and require user approval (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37010104)

I'm not so sure of that protection you ascribe to IE8 (haven't used 9)
Websites still use attack vectors to run content without any warning at all. That I got UAC working meant nothing at all; by then the code was already executing, and you never know just how rooted you got PRIOR to UAC wanting to get beyond simple user-mode rootkitting. User-mode rootkits are just as effective stealing my info. I'm at a loss because I hadn't seen code get triggered when I explicitly removed Java; I forgot that flash 10 and plain old buffer overflows are a problem.

Re:It's not a virus, and require user approval (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 2 years ago | (#37010452)

That's why IE8 and 9 (in Vista and 7) have protected mode. It runs the browser in a sandbox that doesn't let the user get attacked in the way you mention (by the way, the phrase "user-mode rootkitting" is an oxymoron. A rootkit requires root access by definition.

Safe to open Word documents in gmail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37009830)

I would have thought everyone knew by now that the safe way is to open a Word document remotely in gmail, then perhaps save it to your computer as a pdf.

Re:Safe to open Word documents in gmail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37009896)

I would have thought everyone knew by now that the safe way is to open a Word document remotely in gmail, then perhaps save it to your computer as a pdf.

Yeah, windoze is so easy and intuitive... In GNU/Linux I just left click.

Re:Safe to open Word documents in gmail (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37009984)

I work in IT support. The smarter users are able to figure out the abstract concept of a file. Most of them just know that if they go to 'recent documents' all their stuff is in there. Except when it isn't. Then they call me.

Flash? (4, Insightful)

unkaggregate (855265) | more than 2 years ago | (#37009894)

The reason why the answer is no is because of hybrid document attack techniques. TT explained that in the hybrid document exploit a Flash file is embedded in Excel or Word document.

Ok Microsoft... why the hell are you allowing Flash inside Word and Excel documents in the first place?!?

Re:Flash? (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#37010562)

How else do you want Microsoft to support future printable YouTube videos that play right on the paper when you touch them with a pen?

Re:Flash? (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#37010740)

Ok Microsoft... why the hell are you allowing Flash inside Word and Excel documents in the first place?!?

Because exploits, um, I mean macros via JavaScript & HTML5 [slashdot.org] won't be available until Office 15.

Oh Boy I can't wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37010220)

holy crap, leave the documents alone. copy them whatever, but quit destroying exe files!

Will it be safe to switch on a Windows computer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37010432)

Same answer.

"and there are no 0 day vulnerabilities" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37010738)

Yes... THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT - of course, if you know about them, they're not zero-day vulnerabilities.

What a load of crap. YES there are, probably, vulnerabilities that you don't know about (I.E. zero-day vulnerabilities). NO you can't EVER say "there are no 0 day vulnerabilities", because if there are, you won't know about them until you find them! Who the fuck wrote that, anyway? A 0-day vulnerability is a vulnerability that you DON'T KNOW EXISTS.

Anyone who THINKS that there are no zero-day vulnerabilities is, statistically speaking, WRONG. There are. And therefore, yes:

If you have installed all Microsoft Office patches ... will it be safe to open a Word or Excel document? ... The answer is no.

Because a Word or Excel document could always exploit a vulnerability that you DON'T KNOW ABOUT.

That's sort of the whole fucking point, right?

Buen aporte (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37010866)

Gracias por la entrada, voy a compartirlo con la fuente correspondiente, Visita: http://foro.dhackers.com

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...