bugtraq - oracle not only offeder - researchers NOT responsible?

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

Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 02:38:52 +0200
From: Gadi Evron <ge@...uxbox.org>
To: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Cc: David Litchfield <davidl@...software.com>, funsec@...uxbox.org
Subject: oracle not only offeder - researchers NOT responsible?

The following is a very well researched text from Matthew Murphy's blog 
discussing the matter of disclosing vulnerabilities to many vendors (and 
specifically Microsoft). Further, as I understand it, he shows how 
vendors today use terms such as "responsible disclosure" to scare 
researchers and claim they are NOT responsible if they don't do it their 
way.

While I certainly did not dispute the facts that David Litchfield showed 
of Oracle's behaviour, I did not agree with how he did it or that Oracle 
is alone.

Oracle is not the only offender, and while I agree that Microsoft has 
come a LONG way and takes security a whole lot more seriously than they 
used to.. they still seem to not understand the security community and 
treat security as a PR problem.

He shows specific cases and vulnerabilities, and is worth a read. Quite 
Refreshing and very informative.

http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/133

	Gadi.