Home page logo

fulldisclosure logo Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: RE: Disclosure policy in Re: RealPlayer vulnerabilities
From: "Pavel Kankovsky" <peak () argo troja mff cuni cz>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 00:11:17 +0200 (CEST)

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Martin Viktora wrote:

I truly believe that vulnerability disclosure should follow these steps:

0. ("The primordial sin") The vulnerable product is released and all
information about the vulnerability is made available *by the vendor
itself* to anyone with enough competence, free resources, motivation,
and a copy of the product.

This is conditio sine qua non. The rest of the story is nothing but
deobfuscation of that information.

Second, you say that vendors must work much harder at reducing patch
development time and I cannot agree with you more, especially after
what I stated above. 

Vendors must work much harder to avoid releasing vulnerable code in the 
first place. No vulnerabilities--no 0-says, no disclosures, no incidents, 
no need to hurry to install security patches.

Or, at least, they themselves should proactively find and fix
vulnerabilities in their own products. Isn't it absurd to wait until
someone else does their work (security QA) for them and even expect the
other party to follow their standards ("responsible disclosure")?

--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak  [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."

Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]