3 ms·
Apologies from straying from the topic at hand but "Fizzbuzzed"? That's a verb now? And its meaning is nothing to do with typical hiring process that FizzBuzz i
by TheCapn 11y ago
Apologies from straying from the topic at hand but "Fizzbuzzed"? That's a verb now? And its meaning is nothing to do with typical hiring process that FizzBuzz is popular for?
- SchizoDuckie 11y agoSorry, tech-term-mixup in my brain. I meant AFL-Fuzzed ofcourse. (http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/afl/ http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/afl/)
- moyix 11y agoAFL-Fuzz is great, but it isn't going to find everything. Some things I can think of that might make finding this difficult with afl-fuzz: * Flash is a scripting language. It's very hard for a fuzzer with no domain knowledge (like AFL-fuzz) to fuzz language-level constructs, since the vast majority of random inputs are trivially invalid. * Flash is typically embedded in a larger program like a browser; this makes it much more expensive to test (browsers have long startup times, and are very slow when run under the kind of instrumentation needed to detect things like use after free bugs) Unfortunately there's no silver bullet for finding vulnerabilities...
- SchizoDuckie 11y agoWhile I agree with this, Adobe does have the knowledge and skills to hook a fuzzer into their Flash source on sandboxes and vm's, and basically let a fuzzer rip. When you build one of the most installed pieces of software in the world, you should take that responsibility.
- kodablah 11y agoAFL works from the outside (and even accepts certain keywords to "hint" the fuzzer)...so really anyone could run it against Flash having it generate SWF's. But it'd probably take a really long time to find anything.