full-disclosure - Re: Full Disclosure != Exploit Release

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: guninski at guninski.com (Georgi Guninski)
Subject: Re: Full Disclosure != Exploit Release

Paul Schmehl wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 06:13, David Howe wrote:
> 
> 
>>That is of course your choice. Vendors in particular were prone to deny
>>a vunerability existed unless exploit code were published to prove it.
> 
> 
> I've read this mantra over and over again in these discussions, and a
> question occurs to me.  Can anyone provide a *documented* case where a
> vendor refused to produce a patch **having been properly notified of a
> vulnerability** until exploit code was released?
> 
> Definitions:
> 
> "properly notified" means that the vendor received written notification
> at a functional address (either email or snail mail) *and* responded
> (bot or human) so that the sender knows the message was received.
> 
> "documented" means that there is proof both of proper notification *and*
> that a patch was not released in a timely manner
> 
> "timely" means within two weeks of the notification
>

IIRC micro$oft never fixed any of my reports in "timely" manner according to 
your definitions. Somewhere on www.guninski.com you may see they didn't fix a 
reproducible exploit in a lot of months.
Another recent example is the "shatter" exploit, which was first denied to be a bug.

Georgi Guninski
http://www.guninski.com