R: [Secure Network Operations, Inc.]FullDisclosure != Exploit Release

["Andrea Vecchio" <andrea.vecchio () bsc it>]

> Da: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com
>
> Good points, 
>       One question remains however.  If we are to attach 
> exploit code to our
> advisories, how do we protect the innocent from attacks by malicious
> people using our exploit code? I honestly believe that exploits are
> digital munitions that should be distributed under 
> restrictions. Do you
> agree that a vulnerability can be clearly demonstrated in an 
> advisory by
> showing debugger output and explaining the output? If proof of concept
> code needs to be made, it could be generated from the detail in the
> advisory. Why is that not a solution? 

Sorry, but I think that full disclosure, by definition, is 
telling something without careing a think about consequences.
I'm not telling whether it's right or not, but so it is.
If we believe in full disclosure (as i do) we have (silently)
accepted that what we're saying can be used in different ways.
"full disclosure" != "exploit release", but 
"exploit release" C "full disclosure"
( C -> belongs to :)
By! A.
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html