Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-security (195 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [suse-security] SuSE Security Announcement - make-3.77
  • From: Yasholomew Yashinski <yashy@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 20:12:10 -0500 (EST)
  • Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10003061955050.8721-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 4 Mar 2000, Petri Sirkkala. wrote:

> > > Bruce Schneier has a very good piece about this. In it he condems
> > > publishing exploits, and *demands* that those who find exploits give the
> > > vendors ample time (not just a few days) to fix the hole.
> >
> > I read that newsletter, and I have to fully disagree with him.

I'm inclined to agree with Rune here.

> > Exploits points a finger, and says "look, its *very* vulnerable, fix it,
> > quick". You don't know if you're the only one that knows about the
> > vulnerability. The only responsible thing to do, is to publish the exploit to
> > as many security-mailinglists as possible, and let admins disable the buggy
> > service.
>
> Do we really need an exploit, why? Is it not enough to inform that
> service this-and-that has a weak point, the authors have been informed
> and responsible admins might disable this service. You know, there is no
> technical solution to social problems.

So I tell you that you should use qmail because the latest sendmail is
crackable. Is this true, or am I just spreading FUD? An exploit allows
admins to try it on their systems.

> > Also, when you publish the exploit before a patch has been made, you light a
> > fire under the program-makers asses. They have to work faster, and will
> > release a patch earlier. They won't wait until their press-department has
> > finished making a really nice looking press-release. THey will release the
> > patch as soon as its finished, without delay.
> >
>
> If this is what you need an exploit for, well feel free to be
> exploitable. You see most programmers really do this for fun and
> perfection, not to be mocked and flamed. Have you ever considered making
> these things you are given free yourselves?

Programmers patch their exploited programs for fun? I don't see what
gives you the right to tell someone they should be exploitable. That would
be following the same belief that your peers are more important then your
customers.

> Phew, it really makes no sense to make programs then.

Because they can be exploited and will need patched?

> > (and before anyone starts ranting on about poor serveradmins getting their
> > servers cracked because of exploits .. I've been cracked.. by the qpopper 2.2
> > exploit ..

Nice story. Too bad you weren't notified of the exploit earlier. Perhaps
you were just waiting for your vendor to notify it's competition of the
patch, which could have prevented the attack.

> > it was a horrible experience, but I do NOT blame the one who
> > released the exploit. And I don't blame the makers of crowbars for breakins,
> > or the weapon manufacturers for murder).

Some people want to know what weapons are available.

I have to agree with "JuSSi" as well, anyone that uses an alias must be
a malicious script kiddie.

- --
..Yashy
- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GU/O/U d+ s:- a--@ C+++>$ U++++>$ P+ L+++>$ E--JOE W+++ N++ o-- K? w---
O M- V-- PS-- PE- Y++ PGP+++ t--- !5 X R tv-- b- DI-- D+
G e h--- r++ y++
- ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE4xFdvFM22zL2gTQcRAm5bAJ4/HoNYf3X4t8Qeb88HKOsi8uQBGQCePS9L
fcXZUh9u5AiB3yfqSHeiU/Y=
=+ZCI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


< Previous Next >
List Navigation
Follow Ups
References