full-disclosure - Re: it\'s all about timing

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]

Message-ID: <200208060123.VAA23161@linus.mitre.org>
From: coley at linus.mitre.org (Steven M. Christey)
Subject: Re: it\'s all about timing

"Robert A. Seace" <ras@...rtibartfast.magrathea.com> said:

>>   3.3.1 Vendor Responsibilities
>> 
>>      7) The Vendor SHOULD recognize that inexperienced or malicious
>>      reporters may not use proper notification, and define its own
>>      procedures for handling such cases. 
>
>	Why must they automatically be labelled either "inexperienced"
>or "malicious", if they don't choose to follow the chosen guidelines??
>Suppose they simply disagree with those guidelines?  They may feel
>it's not THEIR job to spend a large portion of their time trying to
>educate the vendor about their own broken software...
>
>... if you're still modifying this "policy", I would really
>suggest changing that language...  Just drop the whole labelling
>of such people, and simply say something like, "Some reporters
>may not follow these guidelines for notification."...

Good point, duly noted.

Many of the items in the draft try to give a rationale for why the
item is there.  In this case, the rationale is mixed with the
recommendation, and as you point out, it's incomplete anyway.  There
are a number of reasons why someone may not use "proper" notification.

Thanks,
- Steve