bugtraq - Re: Vulnerabilities in some SCADA server softwares

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]

Message-ID: <AANLkTi=PFhSMx548CpWjmzrarUi==YrZ35Fvj_uVEkOP@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:52:56 -0700
From: Michal Zalewski <lcamtuf@...edump.cx>
To: R Michael Williams <rmwstealth@...cast.net>
Cc: "J. Oquendo" <sil@...iltrated.net>,
	Luigi Auriemma <aluigi@...istici.org>,
	"bugtraq@...urityfocus.com" <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>
Subject: Re: Vulnerabilities in some SCADA server softwares

>  I believe the best course of action for a SCADA vulnerability would be to let the vendor know first,

That's fine, but the controversy around the proper mode of disclosure
is here to stay. For every good argument you make, there is an equally
compelling counter-argument that other reasonable people believe in
good faith. It really comes down to personal beliefs, and nothing has
changed here in the past 15 years or so.

Any of us can disagree, but lashing out against other people seems
first of all impolite, and second, somewhat amusing on this particular
forum.

/mz