full-disclosure - Re: VUPEN Security Research - Adobe Flash Player RTMP Data Processing Object Confusion (CVE-2013-2555)

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]

Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 00:43:15 +0100
From: Benji <me@...ji.com>
To: Bryan <bryan@...wildhats.com>
Cc: Full-Disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: VUPEN Security Research - Adobe Flash Player
 RTMP Data Processing Object Confusion (CVE-2013-2555)

Sorry, by flaws, I should have said, *"has not prevent bad code/ineffective
patches from being pushed out"


On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Benji <me@...ji.com> wrote:

> (For example,
> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2cXGaaHnqyMJ:www.computerworld.com/s/article/9235954/Researchers_find_critical_vulnerabilities_in_Java_7_Update_11+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk)
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:37 AM, Benji <me@...ji.com> wrote:
>
>> Because security engineers are different to a QA department you
>> originally suggested, and you seem to be very ideologist about the
>> scenarios. As we've seen, Oracle's Java product has security engineers and
>> this has not prevented flaws.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Bryan <bryan@...wildhats.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Your 5-chained-0day-to-code-exec, in my opinion, does not count as
>>> negligence  and comes from the developer effectively not being a
>>> security engineer"
>>> Solution: Hire security engineers.
>>>
>>> "In my opinion we are not at the stage in industry where we can
>>> consider/expect any developer to think through each implication of
>>> each feature they implement"
>>> Solution: Hire security engineers to think through each implication.
>>>
>>> Why are we disagreeing?
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:11:51AM +0100, Benji wrote:
>>> >    Your proposition was that developers will always make mistakes and
>>> >    introduce stupid problems, so a QA team/process is necessary. While
>>> I
>>> >    agree that there should be a QA/'audit' at some point, it shouldnt
>>> be the
>>> >    stage that is relied on. Applications that are flawed from the
>>> design
>>> >    stage onwards will become expenditure blackholes, especially after
>>> going
>>> >    through any QA process which should highlight these.
>>> >    Potentially yes, but most of the larger companies appear to already
>>> do
>>> >    this. A quick search through google shows that Oracle atleast
>>> already
>>> >    have, and/or are actively hiring security engineers involved with
>>> Java
>>> >    (for example).
>>> >    Flaws will always pop up and I think we may now be bordering on
>>> discussing
>>> >    what counts as negligence in some cases. Your
>>> 5-chained-0day-to-code-exec,
>>> >    in my opinion, does not count as negligence and comes from the
>>> developer
>>> >    effectively not being a security engineer, but doing the job of a
>>> >    developer. In my opinion we are not at the stage in industry where
>>> we can
>>> >    consider/expect any developer to think through each implication of
>>> each
>>> >    feature they implement, without a strong security background as
>>> much as we
>>> >    may appreciate it. Negligence in my opinion of security
>>> vulnerabilities is
>>> >    having obvious format string bugs/buffer overflows when handling
>>> user
>>> >    input for example, or incorrect permissions, or just a lack of
>>> >    consideration to obvious problems. Developer training should pick
>>> up on
>>> >    the obvious bugs, or atleast give developers an understanding of
>>> how to
>>> >    handle users/user input in a safe manner, and know the implications
>>> of not
>>> >    doing so.
>>> >
>>> >    On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Bryan <bryan@...wildhats.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >      I think the definition of 'needless staff' highly depends on
>>> whether you
>>> >      want 'vulnerable software'.
>>> >
>>> >      Educating current developers is absolutely a good idea, but still
>>> not
>>> >      foolproof. The bottom line is that if you want safe software, you
>>> need
>>> >      to invest in proper development. As far as I am concerned, for
>>> large
>>> >      companies like Adobe and Oracle, where software bugs in your
>>> product
>>> >      have a direct impact on the safety of your customers, that
>>> involves
>>> >      hiring specialized staff.
>>>
>>
>>
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/