full-disclosure - The new Microsoft math: 1 patch for 14 vulnerabilities, MS04-011

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: james.burnes at gwl.com (Burnes, James)
Subject: The new Microsoft math:  1 patch for 14 vulnerabilities, MS04-011

Exactly the point of full disclosure.  If someone with a serious axe to grind would have stumbled onto the ASN.1 flaw before the Eeye notice, it could have been an ELE* for MS and some major corporations.

Let's see, unpatched ASN.1 + Flash Worm = ?

jim burnes
security engineer
great-west, denver
 
*Extinction Level Event

> -----Original Message-----
> From: full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com [mailto:full-disclosure-
> admin@...ts.netsys.com] On Behalf Of Edward W. Ray
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 9:40 AM
> To: 'Roman Drahtmueller'; full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] The new Microsoft math: 1 patch for 14
> vulnerabilities, MS04-011
> 
> I would not mind the bunching, except that many of the vulnerabilities
> were
> discovered more than 4-6 months ago.  The other Oses release patches much
> more quickly.  What if someone other than Eeye with an axe to grind
> discovered these flaws before Microsoft decided to patch them?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com
> [mailto:full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com] On Behalf Of Roman
> Drahtmueller
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 7:36 AM
> To: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] The new Microsoft math: 1 patch for 14
> vulnerabilities, MS04-011
> 
> >
> > I use Linux, OpenBSD and Windows in my enterprise.  Linux and OpenBSD
> > use the "1 patch for 1 vulnerability" rule.  Seems to me that MS is
> > bunching their patches together in order to make it seem on the
> > surface that Windows has less patches than other Oses, therefore it is
> > more secure.  CIOs, take note.
> 
> It happens from time to time (today...) that several bugs get fixed with
> one
> update package on SUSE Linux (and other Linuxes). But: One update package
> fixes one package, whereas one patch can consist of several update
> packages
> (in our patch management framework).
> 
> After all, it is a matter of transparency if you can manually,
> individually
> select what update package you want on your system and which not. Probably
> even more important: You should also be able to see what _changes_ have
> been
> applied to every single update package. Otherwise, you just can't know
> what
> else has been "fixed"...
> 
> Regards,
> Roman.
> --
>  -                                                                      -
> | Roman Drahtm?ller      <draht@...e.de> // "You don't need eyes to see, |
>   SUSE Linux AG - Security       Phone: //             you need vision!"
> | N?rnberg, Germany     +49-911-740530 //           Maxi Jazz, Faithless |
>  -                                                                      -
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html