| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:02:20 -0400 From: Jeffrey Walton <noloader@...il.com> To: Peter Ferrie <peter.ferrie@...il.com> Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: Microsoft Office Excel 2010 memory corruption On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Peter Ferrie <peter.ferrie@...il.com> wrote: >>> No, it costs a lot of time and money to fix even one issue. >>> We don't want to waste it on something that isn't exploitable. >> There are at least four problems with this argument. First, the >> argument basically says "defective software is OK." > > You've interpreted "don't want to waste it" as "won't fix it", > extended it to suggest that it's an acceptable response, and then > proceeded to attack that conclusion. > Do you call the fire brigade if you see the smoke from a candle? > No, but you might get someone in eventually to clean the soot from the ceiling. Secure is an immigrant property of the system (http://www.mail-archive.com/sc-l@securecoding.org/msg03639.html). How can the program be secure if its not even stable? Worst, its CompSci 101 mistakes - lack of parameter validation and failure to check return values - and not some clever attack. To add insult to injury, compiler warning, static analysis and dynamic analysis will often report the issues but they are not used or ignored. Jeff _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists