[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7b00a5a7ca6bfba3b08d0ced20be7c4f@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 04:13:12 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Extend AFL to fuzz as you want
On 2015-03-19 02:21, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> On 2015-03-18 15:35, Frank Dittrich wrote:
>> On 03/18/2015 01:12 PM, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
>>> I think this is a general question to be discussed in john-dev, not
>>> limited by the needs of fuzzing or security in general. Talking
>>> specifically about fuzzing, when you want to fuzz functions behind the
>>> valid() it's easier to patch this specific check out of valid() for now.
>>
>> But isn't the purpose of valid() to make sure all the other format
>> methods only have to work with sane/sanitized input?
>> Why should we care about segfaults etc. that would only occur after you
>> removed some of the sanity checks in valid?
>
> That's an interesting question. Short answer: we should care about it
> because such a crash could be due to a genuine bug. But it very much
> depends on a particular hash/valid()/get_salt()/etc.
Knock yourselves out guys, just do not open GitHub issues for crashes
that you can only trigger after removing whatever protection we had in
place for them. Not unless you actually *did* find a genuine bug *and*
can describe (or fix) it.
magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
