News Stay informed about the latest enterprise technology news and product updates.

Why lateral SQL injection and NULL pointer attacks matter

There has been a lot of interesting work going on in the research community of late on a handful of really specialized and esoteric application attacks, like Mark Dowd’s NULL pointer attack and David Litchfield’s lateral SQL injection technique. These two methods have a few things in common, specifically the fact that they both exploit things that were thought to be unexploitable. One other similarity is that some people seem to be dismissing these techniques as theoretical or purely academic thought exercises that will never see the light of day. Proponents of this line of thinking say that enterprises don’t need to worry about crazy, multi-step attacks that are hard to understand. It’s things like buffer overflows and worms that really need your attention, they say.

This is, ah, how should I put it, ridiculous. These new attacks are exactly the kind of things that should worry you if you’re charged with protecting a corporate network. Hackers pay good money for reliable attack methods like this, particularly when they are brand new and not well understood. Security specialists know what a buffer overflow attack looks like, and there are any number of products out there that are capable of stopping these attacks. But the complex techniques like Litchfield’s and Dowd’s are the ones that find the cracks in network defenses and by the time they’re recognized for what they are, it’s game over. And who’s to say that some hacker in the Ukraine or Brazil or China hasn’t been using the same techniques for months?

Sure, worms and viruses and phishing are still threats, but to ignore new attacks because they look difficult or complex is foolish at best and negligent at worst.

Join the conversation

1 comment

Send me notifications when other members comment.

Please create a username to comment.

I think it's unlikely that someone has been using the same techniques previously, because both are groundbreaking new ideas. The rest I agree with. Only fools scoff at new attack vectors and think that they don't have to worry about them.