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]

Message-ID: <3E37EC81.9040307@snosoft.com>
From: dotslash at snosoft.com (KF)
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?

Heck yeah! See our issues with Compaq / HP earlier this summer... I was 
basically told sure you can cause a segfault but our non-executable 
stack is the holy grail and YOU can not touch it. Basically laughing in 
my face for even implying that I could take root on a TRU64 box via a 
buffer overflow. Without an exploit they claimed it was NOT possible. I 
have heard of similar horror stories with HP... anyone else care to share?

You all know the outcome of that... a exploit was leaked they flipped 
out tryed to sue us and mircaulously you see patches in a few days.

-KF