3 ms·
It's quite scary how even well reviewed open source software keeps falling to fuzzing. What are the chances of standing up against advanced state-sponsored troj
by 0x0 12y ago
It's quite scary how even well reviewed open source software keeps falling to fuzzing. What are the chances of standing up against advanced state-sponsored trojans and malware? Seemingly zero.
Is it time to throw out everything and start from scratch in a safer language?
- userbinator 12y agoI think it has to do with the fact that most software just never gets fuzzed. When "what's a fuzzer?" is the most common response I've had when talking to others about using one, followed by "why would you do that - we have test cases already" after explaining what it does, it's not hard to see why. There's a sort of malicious, "hacker"-like (in the pejorative sense) perception around useful security tools like fuzzers, password bruteforcers, port scanners, etc. which may be part of the reluctance too.
- rwmj 12y agoYes, use safe languages when you can. On the other hand, we have all this software written in unsafe languages, but until afl came out we didn't have really effective, easy to use fuzzers.
- 0x0 12y agoActually zzuf http://caca.zoy.org/wiki/zzuf http://caca.zoy.org/wiki/zzuf has been around for like 7 years - and it's still pretty easy to find exploits with it.
- the_why_of_y 12y agoCERT's BFF is also based on zzuf, and valgrind, very useful. http://www.cert.org/vulnerability-analysis/tools/bff.cfm http://www.cert.org/vulnerability-analysis/tools/bff.cfm http://www.cert.org/blogs/certcc/post.cfm?EntryID=53 http://www.cert.org/blogs/certcc/post.cfm?EntryID=53