From: Nicolas.Villatte at advalvas.be (Nicolas Villatte)
Subject: [Secure Network Operations, Inc.] FullDisclosure != Exploit Release

The reference to SQL worm was here because this incident triggered such
debate a bit everywhere.
The elite term I used is here to define few selected people that would
be aware of complementary information around vulnerability, not at all
some kind of quality distinction.
The proof of concept or any piece of code will allow to have further
insight in the vulnerability, I do not believe you can explain in a
standard way programming related stuff the way you would with a piece of
code.
For me a highly detailed advisory should include a code example, else it
is not that highly detailed.
I never stated you were talking about the SQL worm; it was just used as
an example in the current context, and "stabbed" was used more as an
allegory.

Best regards,

Nicolas.



-----Message d'origine-----
De?: Strategic Reconnaissance Team [mailto:recon@...soft.com] 
Envoy??: mardi 28 janvier 2003 21:10
??: Nicolas Villatte
Cc?: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
Objet?: Re: RE : [Full-Disclosure] [Secure Network Operations, Inc.]
FullDisclosure != Exploit Release

Nicolas, 
	I think that you should re-read the e-mail that I posted to
full-disclosure. The message had nothing to do with the recent SQL worm,
nor was it even mentioned anywhere. The focus of the message was to help
determine legitimate reasons, if any, to release proof of concept code
to everyone. As I stated, full disclosure is a powerful resource and
helped to educate the possibly vulnerable. However, is proof of concept
code a requirement to educate the possibly vulnerable? My argument is
that a highly detailed advisory would more than suffice. Now, just out
of curiosity, where did I mention worm, virus, or even being stabbed?

	To answer your question: 

Do you prefer to be aware of the exploit like the ones that will use it
after some modifications or do you prefer only some "elite" is able to
harm the systems?

I prefer to be aware of the vulnerability and to know how to fix the
vulnerability. Once the vulnerability is repaired, all of your exploits
are rendered useless. 

As for being "elite", well, I have a hard time considering people elite
when they negatively impact the human race. They are quite literally,
not superior. So, as an argument of opinion,f I'll have to go ahead and
disagree there... Ok... (office space speak)



On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 14:22, Nicolas Villatte wrote:
> I am sorry but people who made this virus does not appear as script
> kiddies to me. Do you prefer to be aware of the exploit like the ones
> that will use it after some modifications or do you prefer only some
> "elite" is able to harm the systems?
> 
> Personally, I prefer to die seeing my enemy than being stabbed.
> 
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com
> [mailto:full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com] De la part de
Strategic
> Reconnaissance Team
> Envoy? : lundi 27 janvier 2003 3:19
> ? : full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> Objet : [Full-Disclosure] [Secure Network Operations, Inc.] Full
> Disclosure != Exploit Release
> 
> All, 
> 
> I have been following the subject of full disclosure for a while, and
as
> most of you know, have dealt with some of the issues that full
> disclosure can cause (HP/Secure Network Operations/DMCA).  While the
> idea of full disclosure is a good idea, and while we support it, we
feel
> that the exploit source code should not be released to everyone.
> 
> It is possible to prove a vulnerability exists by releasing well
written
> advisories.  Because of this fact, proof of concept code (exploit
> source) is not a requirement for the education of the possibly
> vulnerable. Releasing non-malicious exploit code is also not an option
> as any local script bunny/kiddie can easily render it functional.
> 
> Proof of concept code is useful for legitimate contract based
> penetration tests. It is also useful for study as it demonstrates
> fundamental flaws computers today (not built in security). But again,
> proof of concept code is not for everyone.
> 
> I am interested in hearing the opinions of the people on this list. If
> you are for exploit source disclosure, I would like to hear arguments
> supported by facts, that explain why.  I am equally interested in
> reasons why not to disclose information. 
> 
> With that said, Secure Network Operations, Inc. will no longer be
> releasing functional proof of concept code. We may release
sufficiently
> detailed advisories. 
> 
> 	
-- 
Strategic Reconnaissance Team <recon@...soft.com>
Secure Network Operations, Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3374 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20030128/1bf232d9/smime.bin

Powered by blists - more mailing lists