[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1076644230.13803.80.camel@Stargate>
Date: 12 Feb 2004 22:50:30 -0500
From: Byron Copeland <nodialtone@...cast.net>
To: tlarholm@...x.com
Cc: ge@...tistical.reprehensible.net, bugtraq@...urityfocus.com,
full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com, ntbugtraq@...tserv.ntbugtraq.com
Subject: Re: RE: W2K source "leaked"?
http://slashdot.org/ is also ranting about it.
On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 21:40, tlarholm@...x.com wrote:
> I know some people have been talking about this as being a false news
> story, but now there is confirmation from Redmond.
>
> http://www.komotv.com/stories/29778.htm
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Thor Larholm
> Senior Security Researcher
> PivX Solutions
> 24 Corporate Plaza #180
> Newport Beach, CA 92660
> http://www.pivx.com
> thor@...x.com
> Phone: +1 (949) 231-8496
> PGP: 0x5A276569
> 6BB1 B77F CB62 0D3D 5A82 C65D E1A4 157C 5A27 6569
>
> PivX defines "Proactive Threat Mitigation". Get a FREE Beta Version of
> Qwik-Fix
> <http://www.qwik-fix.net>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gadi Evron [mailto:ge@...tistical.reprehensible.net]
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 1:49 PM
> To: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
> Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com; Thor Larholm
> Subject: W2K source "leaked"?
>
>
> A couple of days ago a friend of mine drew my attention to the source
> making rounds on the encrypted p2p networks, I was hoping it would take
> a bit longer for it to be "out", but that was just day-dreaming.
>
> Thor Larholm just gave me this URL, as you can notice, the server is
> busy: http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=17509
>
> I never believed in 0-days. "New" or more to the point
> un-known-to-the-public exploits and vulnerabilities exist and are being
> used.
> In my opinion "0-days" virtually don't exist. It's usually either some
> vulnerability that is long known and a COP or a worm is created. Or
> exploits that will nearly never see the "public" but exist and are used
> by few individuals.. but now... I don't know.
>
> How often does a brand new exploit come out without prior warning and
> "attack" the net?
>
> *If* this really is the.. _real_ source code for W2K (and according to
> the article NT4 as well).... we'll see what happens next.
>
> People didn't need help finding vulnerabilities in Windows before, but
> it just became a whole lot easier and a lot less demanding on the "m4d
> #4x0r 5k111z".
>
> I can't really say that the article is right and the source was "leaked"
>
> or "stolen". The source is being sold/given (?) for years now to EDU's
> and commercial companies for research purposes (not to mention China..).
>
> I suppose foul play is always possible.
>
> Can anyone confirm this is the real source code? How about a press
> release? :)
>
> Gadi Evron
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists