full-disclosure - Symantec Buys SecurityFocus, among others.

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]

From: steve at entrenchtech.com (Steve)
Subject: Symantec Buys SecurityFocus, among others.

> Release exploits with the vaguest of descriptions as to how they work 
> (lost for examples -- just copy'n'paste the "technical bits" of some 
> of the security bulletins from MS...).  Have the _only_ PoC code a 
> compiled binary loaded with copyright notices forbidding reversing, 
> etc.  Be sure to use some "encryption" (extremely trivial is OK as 
> complexity doesn't matter; can you say XOR?) in the PoC to "protect" 
> the important secret (generally the overflow "string" itself).  Be 
> capricious in who you prosecute under the DMCA for incoporating 
> vulnerability detection of this flaw into their products.  (Many 
> other "pro-reversing" laws allow reversing if doing so is the only 
> (practical) way to ensure compatibility or system inter-operation -- 
> this should not be a defense against reversing a security 
> vulnerability exploit...)

But how could you stop one from simply setting up a sniffer to "see"
what the exploit does on the network or monitor the local system to see
what is done?  I am all for people releasing exploit code, I see no
reason not to, but trying to protect it is a waste of time as there are
a million ways, legal ways, around it.