full-disclosure - Microsoft Cries Wolf ( again )

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: this_is_kris at hotmail.com (Kristian Hermansen)
Subject: Microsoft Cries Wolf ( again )

Yes, programmers should be trained to write better code...but it is more
profitiable to allow sloppy code and a simple fix later (behind the scenes
with vendor notification).  This is MS point-of-view.  This is why they want
vendor notification, rather than public notification.  Again, I say let the
0-days fly.

Did you know that certain US government agencies have teams that their only
job is to break software?  This has been going on since the 1970's.  It
helps to produce secure code in mission critical applications that the
military needs.  I am not saying that MS needs to be SO drastic...but a
small team for their MOST popular products would sure be wise to start with.
Why not hire fucking intern teenagers from russia to "Crash Test" their
development projects (facetious)?  Would it be so difficult/expensive to
hire some of the main companies that are breaking your software???

Kris Hermansen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Schmehl, Paul L" <pauls@...allas.edu>
To: <full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 6:58 PM
Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] Microsoft Cries Wolf ( again )


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kristian Hermansen [mailto:this_is_kris@...mail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 3:09 PM
> > To: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> > Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Microsoft Cries Wolf ( again )
> >
> >
> > I agree.  It is not our problem.  The reason is this.
> > Microsoft would like to reduce costs.  Fixing bugs in
> > products costs money, and 0-day bugs need immediate fixes
> > which slow down MS total output ability.  They would like to
> > see everyone reporting to the vendor first because this saves
> > them money!!! In this respect, this also allows them to go on
> > writing sloppy code in order to save a few bucks on every
> > product, thus reducing their overhead.  I don't want sloppy
> > code.  Let the 0-days fly....maybe MS will start doing
> > extensive testing to their products before they release it
> > for sale to millions of customers.  I thought .NET was
> > supposed to fix all this  ;-P
>
> That's too funny.  Microsoft ran a "buffer overflow finder" against the
> codebase for XP, and the VP in charge announced publicly that they had
> "eliminated buffer overflows in XP".  Within thirty days, eEye announced
> the UPnP vulnerability in SSDP, which is the single most devastating
> hole ever found in MS products.  (You can compromise an entire network
> of XP machines with one attack, simultaneously.)
>
> You don't fix code by extensive testing.  You fix it by teaching how to
> write secure code to begin with *and* by ongoing, consistent audits done
> before code is released.  (OpenBSD has been doing this for years, and
> look at the results.)
>
> Paul Schmehl (pauls@...allas.edu)
> Adjunct Information Security Officer
> The University of Texas at Dallas
> AVIEN Founding Member
> http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
>