bugtraq - Re: Another Low Blow From Microsoft: MBSA Failure!

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <LAW11-OE40HZceUkBtm0001b4d9@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:38:22 -0800
From: "morning_wood" <se_cur_ity@...mail.com>
To: <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>
Cc: <full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com>, <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>,
   <patchmanagement@...tserv.patchmanagement.org>, <dotsecure@...hmail.com>
Subject: Re: Another Low Blow From Microsoft: MBSA Failure!

>> did you try exploit code to verify? that should dispel any ambiguity
>> across scanner reports, it would be real easy to load your network
>> hosts into a batch file or shell script and see how many "roots" you get.

>Given the number of cases we see of somebody posting an actual PoC for
>a vulnerability that *doesn't* *work* on some machines, I'd really hate
>to bet my security on "Oh, the exploit we tried didn't work, we must be
>safe".
>Remember - if the exploit works, you have a problem.  Failure of the
>exploit to work does NOT mean you don't have a problem 

obviously, no need to nitpick the fine points ok.
I KNOW "you" know what I mean and I do not consider
PoC testing "routine", I was meerly suggesting an alternate
method for the poster to verify, he had 2 ways to test, I suggested
a 3rd to raise his confidence factor in his unclear testing results.

m.wood

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html