full-disclosure - re: openssh exploit code?

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: <200310201513.h9KFDcN5003708@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu)
Subject: re: openssh exploit code? 

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 03:17:42 EDT, "S . f . Stover" said:

> Not really - just interested in seeing what other people had found.  I don't
> think that qualifies as "dependence".  BTW, I thought "whitehat" implied
> non-disclosure, which isn't really the direction I'm coming from.

There are a number of full-disclosure white hats out there.  Remember that the
color of the hat denotes *motivations*, which are orthogonal to opinions
regarding disclosure.

Some white hats believe in full disclosure, because some places refuse to patch
till they're shown an actual exploit, changing a threat from theoretical to
real.

Some white hats believe in non-disclosure, to keep exploits away from the
skript kiddies.

Some black hats believe in full disclosure, so they can hack systems and stay
submerged under the noise of all the others using the exploit.

Some black hats believe in non-disclosure, because they want to be the only
ones able to use an exploit.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20031020/9c497bb8/attachment.bin