full-disclosure - [Secure Network Operations, Inc.] FullDisclosure != Exploit Release

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

From: recon at snosoft.com (Strategic Reconnaissance Team)
Subject: [Secure Network Operations, Inc.]
	FullDisclosure != Exploit Release

Right, 
	We are discussing the ideas of releasing or not releasing full proof of
concept code.  When working with a vendor, all code release is off and
everything is done under strict MNDA or NDA. However, if we do release
exploits again for non=vendor related projects, one of our concerns is
that it might affect future relationships. For example, company X might
be turned off by us because we find a large amount of issues with their
software. We notify them, then 45 days later release proof of concept
code. I'll bet that they would never work with us under contract after
that.  How to avoid that is also a good add in for this topic. 

	We want to do what is morally and ethically correct, but we also do not
by any means want to harm the security industry. 


On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 12:46, hellNbak wrote:
> Thanks for adding zero value Ron.
> 
> We are not talking about working with vendors or notifying vendors.  I
> made the assumption that the Snosoft guys have their own policy on what to
> do with vendors.  We have our own at NMRC and we are quite willing to work
> with a vendor.  But that is not what we are discussing here.
> 
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Ron DuFresne wrote:
> 
> > Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:35:39 -0600 (CST)
> > From: Ron DuFresne <dufresne@...ternet.com>
> > To: hellNbak <hellnbak@...c.org>
> > Cc: Strategic Reconnaissance Team <recon@...soft.com>,
> >      Nicolas Villatte <Nicolas.Villatte@...alvas.be>,
> >      full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> > Subject: Re: RE : RE : [Full-Disclosure] [Secure Network Operations,
> >      Inc.] FullDisclosure != Exploit Release
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, hellNbak wrote:
> >
> >
> > 	[SNIP]
> >
> > >
> > > So I say release the code, try and make it as crippled as possible
> > > (localhost only or whatever) so at least you know that *your* code won't
> > > be directly used for malicious intent.  Yeah exploits and malicious
> > > code/worms/virus'/whatever will still exist and be abused but regardless
> > > of what you and anyone else for that matter do it always will.
> > >
> > > At least with releasing code you can take comfort in knowing that you are
> > > helping those who cannot help themselves.  That is of course if you
> > > believe in helping others and don't just release advisories for the
> > > media-whoring marketing purposes (hello to my friends at ISS ;p).
> > >
> > >
> >
> > What's interesting about the disclosure debates in their various forms, is
> > that it has been ongoing since the first earliest security lists, <check
> > the http://securitydigest.org/ site>.  In fact, the debate seemed to be at
> > time a near show stopper for a number of the early lists, at times they
> > never got much beyond the topic, for long periods of time, and some lists
> > died or went stagemant while enthralled within the discussion process>.
> > And, to this day it persists.  Though the trend has been softened with the
> > term "responsible" prepended.  In that light, rather then issueing a quick
> > advisory with a borked exploit enclosed, it might be better to issue the
> > warning, after first letting the vendor<s> in question know of your
> > findings and giving them at least a modicum of time to ingest your work,
> > then later down the road, posting the code you developed.  Perhaps
> > allowing a large portion of those exposed, to fix their sites and be
> > prepared for the coming mess of adverse packets?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > Ron DuFresne
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > "Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity.  It
> > eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
> > business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart
> > 	***testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!***
> >
> > OK, so you're a Ph.D.  Just don't touch anything.
> >
> >
-- 
Strategic Reconnaissance Team <recon@...soft.com>
Secure Network Operations, Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20030129/ea1d2c2e/attachment.bin