Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Re: Internet Explorer URL parsing vulnerability
From: "Daniel H. Renner" <dan () losangelescomputerhelp com>
Date: 10 Dec 2003 12:07:21 -0800
On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 08:54, John Sage wrote:
Re: disclosure vs. non-disclosure and M$ On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 05:44:35AM -0800, S G Masood wrote:From: S G Masood <sgmasood () yahoo com> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Re: Internet Explorer URL parsing vulnerability To: Feher Tamas <etomcat () freemail hu>, full-disclosure () lists netsys com Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:44:35 -0800 (PST) --- Feher Tamas <etomcat () freemail hu> wrote:Hello,don't start a disclosure - non disclosure threadagain and again and again please...
<snip> PLEASE!
However, unfortunately, if you are familiar with the pattern in which MS handled the previous unpatched IE vulns, this looks like one of those IE vulns. that MS *WONT* patch.With the virtually unlimited resources (financially and staff-wise) available to Micro$oft, why has this sort of vulnerability been left undiscovered and unpatched by Micro$oft itself? Put a hundred people on the task of identifying any URL oddities that IE currently accepts, and patch, patch, patch. It would take less than a week to fix *all* of this sort of crap. The fact that someone out in the community at large (once again) discovers a vuln and publishes it is just an ongoing symptom of the fundamental problem:
<snip>
- John
Why can't most people see the obvious? Known facts: a) Company "A" has the resources to fix ANYTHING on this planet. b) _MANY_ people complain that company "A"'s product is "broken". c) Company "A" doesn't fix the product. Conclusion? Company "A" DOESN'T WANT IT'S PRODUCT FIXED. No esoteric or underlying marketing ploys or conspiracy theories need apply (not that they don't, they just don't need to for these purposes.) Think about it - if you had a car that smoked like crazy, and your neighbors, the Clean Air Board and Mothers Against Drunk Driving were ragging on you to fix it, and you had the money and time to do so, but you still didn't - the _ONLY_ logical reason could be that you just plain didn't want to. You could put out PLENTY of good "reasons" (know in the corporate world as Marketing) why you hadn't - but the bottom line is that you just don't want to. They simply don't want it fixed. We can guess why, but they know why - and they aren't telling. Not a good sign... -- Cheers, Dan Renner President Los Angeles Computerhelp http://losangelescomputerhelp.com 818.352.8700 _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Re: Re: Internet Explorer URL parsing vulnerability, (continued)
- Re: Re: Internet Explorer URL parsing vulnerability Michael Gale (Dec 10)
- RE: Re: Internet Explorer URL parsing vulnerability Kristian Hermansen (Dec 11)
- RE: Re: Internet Explorer URL parsing vulnerability Karlis Zigurs (Dec 11)
- Re: Re: Internet Explorer URL parsing vulnerability Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 11)
- Re: Re: Internet Explorer URL parsing vulnerability Michael Gale (Dec 10)
- RE: RE: FWD: Internet Explorer URL parsing vulnerability Rainer Gerhards (Dec 10)
- Re: RE: FWD: Internet Explorer URL parsing vulnerability Georgi Guninski (Dec 10)
- Re: Re: Internet Explorer URL parsing vulnerability S G Masood (Dec 10)
- Re: Re: Internet Explorer URL parsing vulnerability John Sage (Dec 10)
- Re: Re: Internet Explorer URL parsing vulnerability Daniel H. Renner (Dec 10)
- Re: Re: Internet Explorer URL parsing vulnerability petard (Dec 10)
- Re: Re: Internet Explorer URL parsing vulnerability Jedi/Sector One (Dec 10)
- Re: Re: Internet Explorer URL parsing vulnerability Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 10)
- Re: RE:Re: RE: FWD: Internet Explorer URL parsing vulnerability Clint Bodungen (Dec 10)
- RE: Re: Internet Explorer URL parsing vulnerability S G Masood (Dec 11)
