full-disclosure - Re: W2K source "leaked"?

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: zliang at seclab.cs.sunysb.edu (Zhenkai Liang)
Subject: Re: W2K source "leaked"?

Microsoft has confirmed the leak. See the link below:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/Feb04/02-12windowssource.asp

Zhenkai

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Gadi Evron wrote:

> A couple of days ago a friend of mine drew my attention to the source 
> making rounds on the encrypted p2p networks, I was hoping it would take 
> a bit longer for it to be "out", but that was just day-dreaming.
> 
> Thor Larholm just gave me this URL, as you can notice, the server is busy:
> http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=17509
> 
> I never believed in 0-days. "New" or more to the point 
> un-known-to-the-public exploits and vulnerabilities exist and are being 
> used.
> In my opinion "0-days" virtually don't exist. It's usually either some 
> vulnerability that is long known and a COP or a worm is created. Or 
> exploits that will nearly never see the "public" but exist and are used 
> by few individuals.. but now... I don't know.
> 
> How often does a brand new exploit come out without prior warning and
> "attack" the net?
> 
> *If* this really is the.. _real_ source code for W2K (and according to 
> the article NT4 as well).... we'll see what happens next.
> 
> People didn't need help finding vulnerabilities in Windows before, but 
> it just became a whole lot easier and a lot less demanding on the "m4d 
> #4x0r 5k111z".
> 
> I can't really say that the article is right and the source was "leaked" 
> or "stolen". The source is being sold/given (?) for years now to EDU's 
> and commercial companies for research purposes (not to mention China..). 
> I suppose foul play is always possible.
> 
> Can anyone confirm this is the real source code? How about a press 
> release? :)
> 
> 	Gadi Evron
> 
>