Message-ID: <20060513030013.94611.qmail@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 20:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Iggy E <iggy_e@...oo.com>
To: Lee Kelly <robert.kelly@...izonbusiness.com>
Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: RE: Oracle - the last word



I politely disagree... if there are no measurements then there can be
no metrics (or is that the other way around? :-) There has to be a
start some place; i.e. in your examples, David's time can be recorded
to the hour, and even the researcher/analyst could have a rating to
compensate for skill difference.

The suggestions/ideas put forth here in this thread are very
interesting, IMO. Besides rating a software package solely on the
number of vulnerabilities found, it's more accurate to include the
time to patch the vulnerability by the vendor, and the time it takes
a vendor to respond to a vulnerability report. These 2 factors could
get a weighted rating and be combined with the "# of vulnerabilities"
rating. Which would be a more accurate assessment of "how safe is
software X?".

I can think of Windows OS vs. Linux OS, and IE vs. Firefox as perfect
examples. Microsoft and its supporters will reference the number (and
perhaps the criticality) of vulnerabilities, while not taking into
account the patch and response time.

Of course, this leads to other possible factors such as a vendor's
patch delivery mechanism, but we can't not take on the task just
because there isn't an immediate clear solution.

Stephen Evans, CISSP


--- Lee Kelly <robert.kelly@...izonbusiness.com> wrote:

> Actually I would think this information would be only as good as
> the person
> doing the testing, and in fact may lead to a false timeline. To
> continue
> using Mr. Litchfield's example consider the following: 
> 
> - The bugs (regardless of number) found in a day could have been
> blatantly
> obvious;
> - The bugs that took two weeks to find may have been more
> technically
> obscure, or it may be that Mr. Litchfield had other things to do
> rather than
> spend all his time looking for bugs;
> - From this, and previous postings, I am going to take for granted
> that Mr.
> Litchfield is an Oracle expert although we have never met to my
> knowledge.
> That being said, how long would it take a novice (or someone less
> skilled)
> to find these same bugs. I think even Mr. Litchfield would agree
> that there
> are malicious people out there just as expert, maybe even more so,
> than he
> is regarding Oracle products. 
> - Level of effort also has to take into account when the research
> started
> versus when the application/patch/upgrade was released. For example
> let's
> say that 10gR2 was released on April 1st (don't actually know, just
> picking
> a date) and Mr. Litchfield was on vacation or travel until April
> 8th. If it
> then took him two weeks to find these bugs the 'bad guys' will have
> had a
> week headstart over his research. I understand that more people
> than Mr.
> Litchfield are doing this research but this would need to be
> factored in the
> equation.
> 
> All this being said -- I am not taking the position that this
> information
> would not be 'interesting', but I don't thing it would "provide a
> more
> concrete answer to the question "how secure is software X."
> 
> Thank You,
>  
> Lee Kelly, CISSP
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven M. Christey [mailto:coley@...re.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 6:29 PM
> To: davidl@...software.com
> Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
> Subject: Re: Oracle - the last word
> 
> 
> David Litchfield said:
> 
> >When Oracle 10g Release 1 was released you could spend a day
> looking
> >for bugs and find thirty. When 10g Release 2 was released I had to
> >spend two weeks looking to find the same number.
> 
> This increasing level of effort is likely happening for other major
> widely audited software products, too.  It would be a very useful
> data
> point if researchers could publicly quantify how much time and
> effort
> they needed to find the issues (note: this is not my idea, it came
> out
> of various other discussions.)  Level of effort might provide a
> more
> concrete answer to the question "how secure is software X?"
> 
> Some researchers might not want to publicize this kind of
> information,
> but this would be one great way to help us move away from the
> primitive practice of counting the number of reported
> vulnerabilities.
> (and while I'm talking about quantifying researcher effort, it
> might
> be highly illustrative to measure how much time is spent in dealing
> with vendors during disclosure.)
> 
> - Steve
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists