Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: [ GLSA 200612-15 ] McAfee VirusScan: Insecure DT_RPATH
From: <David_Coffey () McAfee com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:39:55 -0600
Gentoo Security Team, On your security web page (http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/index.xml), you make the following statement about how you work with vendors in a professional manner: "We work directly with vendors, end users and other OSS projects to ensure all security incidents are responded to quickly and professionally." This statement seems to contrast greatly your practice of not following a "professional" responsible disclosure process; particularly, posting a security issue only 8.5 hours after your initial report was confirmed by McAfee and a mere 9 hours after you sent in your initial report. Not following responsible disclosure places customers, both ours and yours, at risk. You put them at risk because you did not allow us even a customary amount of time to make a fix available. Now, the information you posted could be used to create exploits, yet there is no patch immediately available. You apparently posted this information without knowing or caring if there was a secure fix available for the vulnerable users. This is not generally considered "responsible" practice. If you are not already aware, there are many responsible disclosure guidelines and practices which have been published, like those outlined at http://www.oisafety.org/ (we are founding members and adhere to these guidelines). These disclosure guidelines (or similar guidelines from CERT and others) help protect the end user by both encouraging the vendors to be responsive and making sure that there is a secure solution available prior to disclosure. Responsible disclosure is a good thing, and we highly encourage you to adopt some form of it for your future vendor interactions. You seem to adopt some form of it for gentoo related security issues, as it states on your vulnerability policy page (http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/vulnerability-policy.xml), but you do not seem to adopt it for issues in other vendor applications. We regret that you felt the need to publish the vulnerability before we could issue a fix to secure our users. We are proceeding with addressing this on our side as quickly as possible, as we would have, no matter the timing of your disclosure. At this point, we cannot commit to a time frame, but it will be as soon as possible. In another matter, McAfee disagrees with your statement that this is a "high" severity issue, as the privilege of the executed code is not raised from the privileges of the executing user. In addition to this, an attacker would have had to compromise the machine through another mechanism in order to place the malicious library on the system. David Coffey Manager of Product Security McAfee, Inc. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Current thread:
- [ GLSA 200612-15 ] McAfee VirusScan: Insecure DT_RPATH Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (Dec 13)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: [ GLSA 200612-15 ] McAfee VirusScan: Insecure DT_RPATH David_Coffey (Dec 14)
- Re: [ GLSA 200612-15 ] McAfee VirusScan: Insecure DT_RPATH Tavis Ormandy (Dec 14)
