[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0HEP0007VCV9M2@smtp1.clear.net.nz>
From: nick at virus-l.demon.co.uk (Nick FitzGerald)
Subject: Hotmail & Passport (.NET Accounts)
Georgi Guninski <guninski@...inski.com> wrote:
> Back in around 1997/1999 ms credited (almost) anyone who bothered to disclose a
> bug - check their bulletins.
> After then this changed. My explanation is that they realized there are *a lot*
> of bugs left and tried to pressure people who bothered to disclose bugs to them
> to keep hush until they fix the bugs.
Sure -- as I said "whether you like it [the policy] or not...".
It is understandable MS wanting to control^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmanage
vulnerability announcements affecting their products. It is equally
understandable, given the history of extensive exploitation of those
products, that many users of the products will not feel entirely
comfortable with this and thus not surprising that some vulnerability
discoverers will act "irresponsibly" in their disclosures.
One of the interesting developments to come from this change and
the fact that most vulnerability discoverers now seem to play by
Microsoft's "rules" is the roughly quarterly (if they can manage
holding off that long between them) IE "cumulative updates" rather
than the almost weekly patch fest that used to be "IE systems
administration". While this may make the patch-appliers happy, and
the inherent delay it clearly introduces into the discover/patch/
test/release chain of single issue IE patches has not yet clearly
been a contributing factor in a massive incident, I sure hope that
folk won't be sucked into bogus "MS released fewer IE patches last
year" claims based solely on the year-on-year comparison of the
number of patch releases (as indicated by security bulletin count).
--
Nick FitzGerald
Computer Virus Consulting Ltd.
Ph/FAX: +64 3 3529854
Powered by blists - more mailing lists