full-disclosure - Re: Clarification on Xitami DoS

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: coley at linus.mitre.org (Steven M. Christey)
Subject: Re: Clarification on Xitami DoS

Muhammad Faisal Rauf Danka <mfrd@...itudex.com> asked:

>What is vendor's status regarding this issue?

to which "Matthew Murphy" <mattmurphy@...rr.com> replied:

>I've e-mailed the vendor, but have received no response *at all*.

This thread is a good demonstration for why vendors need to be
responsive to incoming vulnerability reports.  Without a response from
the vendor, we've now got a number of posts in which people have spent
extra time to (a) try to figure out the underlying cause of the issue,
(b) try to duplicate the issue, and (c) try to come up with a
resolution in the absence of vendor guidance and/or a patch.  Vendors
often know the answers to these questions.

Greater overall responsiveness by vendors is covered heavily by
section 3 of the Responsible Vulnerability Disclosure Process draft
[1].  Better responsiveness from vendors (and better coordination
overall) can reduce much of this guesswork, so that sysadmins and
security researchers can spend their time on more pressing issues.

- Steve

[1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-christey-wysopal-vuln-disclosure-00.txt