mailing list archives
Re: Vulnerabilities in some SCADA server softwares
From: R Michael Williams <rmwstealth () comcast net>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:46:44 -0500
While I support full disclosure, I also advocate responsible disclosure. The public _has_ a right to know, but in this
case, they can play no significant part in remedy or mitigation unless they are employees of the vendor or the
customer. I believe the best course of action for a SCADA vulnerability would be to let the vendor know first, let
them know you intend to disclose publicly after a reasonable time, then release to the potential customers in a
responsible time thereafter, and finally the public (admittedly could be very arbitrary per researcher). This way you
can hopefully get the fix started and let the security-conscious vendor notify customers how to defend in the interim
for defense purposes _before_ you let a potential attacker in on the problem. Just my $0.02...
Sent from my mobile launching platform...
On Mar 22, 2011, at 16:24, Michal Zalewski <lcamtuf () coredump cx> wrote:
Analogy: Car owner has his car speed up ending up in almost near
catastrophe. Car owner goes to media outlets condemning the
manufacturer: "How could you be so reckless! Thousand of lives..."
Reality: Car manufacturer was never made aware of the issue. How do you
propose a manufacturer fix an issue?
Yes, the discussion definitely needed a car analogy...
The author decided to follow a particular route, probably not out of
malice, but because he believes that his responsibilities to inform
the public outweigh the responsibility to assist the vendor. You
wouldn't do the same, but you haven't discovered these bugs.
Unless your view is that you would rather not know about about
security problems at all, than see a disclosure mode you do not agree
with, I do not think it's fair to lash out against the reporter; and
it's not particularly fitting to do so on BUGTRAQ.