[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0312191104520.21720-100000@tundra.winternet.com>
From: dufresne at winternet.com (Ron DuFresne)
Subject: atrticle in: Security Wire Perspectives, Vol. 5, NO. 93, December
19, 2003
Was Shawna McAlearney's assessment of Liu Die Yu's recent findings in M$
products correct in stating his inticement was:
<quote>
Several weeks ago Chinese researcher Liu Die Yu posted several
Internet Explorer flaws to the Full-Disclosure security mailing list.
His reasoning: Microsoft hasn't given him credit for prior
vulnerabilities he reported.
</quote>
Was this correct? I do not have all the original posts on hand, but, I
do not recall any lament about M$ not giving him the recognition
he felt was deserved for previous findings, though I may well have missed
this. The reason I ask is, there has been a large shift in the security
"lists/field/top dogs" in trying to avoid casting blame/responsibility at
M$ for the products it has pushed into the market place, perhaps due to the
deep pockets and breadth of market saturation, thus dependance of many
upon the M$ pocketbook to feed the rest of the industry in one fashion or
another. The critical articles of a year+ past seem to now, especially
after the @stake recent actions, to be focused these days upon
avoiding mentioning the shortcomings from redmond. Are others reading the
same these days?
Thanks,
Ron DuFresne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart
***testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!***
OK, so you're a Ph.D. Just don't touch anything.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists