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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
From: kernelpenguin at hot.ee (Elver Loho)
Subject: THCIISSLame exploit

Okay, I'll bite.

: 1. the code is given as is, if it doesn't work for you...learn to code

The whole idea was binaries vs source code. My point, which you seem to have 
missed, was that it's better to have source code than a binary. Plus the 
release of a binary along with the source code is redundant. And, as someone 
pointed out, might also create problems with the authorities. And I can code 
quite well, thank you for being concerned.

: 2. As for the free speech etc etc...the bug is fixed, if you are unable to
: patch the system you are responsible for, get a new job, if you didn't
: know about the bug/fix, get a new job, if you want to bitch about
: releasing exploit code/binaries on a security mailinglist...go do it
: somewhere else.

Source code might fall under freedom of speech. Binaries definitely don't. If 
he released that in a country where compiled exploits might get you more 
attention from the authorities, he's still going to have problems even if he 
did release the binary on the Internet. As for getting a new job, etc, I, 
again, thank you for taking interest in my life, but that won't be an issue.

Also, I think it's more interesting if exploit code is released before a 
patch. The reactions of people are much more interesting to observe. Plus it 
gives you something to look for instead of just sitting and praying to 
whatever deity you worship that you don't get hacked. Of course, that's 
assuming the original advisory isn't informative enough.

: 3. If you don't like people posting exploits for bugs, get a new hobby/job

Again, this was about binaries vs source code. I prefer the latter. I have no 
problem with people releasing exploits. I much enjoy seeing clever code.

: 4. If it is illegal in your country, good for you!! It isn't in the FREE
: world, thank god. Firewall you nation off, it helps us all

No, it's quite legal around here. I don't know what the laws are there in the 
UK, but I did however hear that the DMCA might create problems for some avid 
exploit coders in parts of the world usually classified as "the free world". 
Didn't HP pull it on SnoSoft once? And, of course, there are the computer 
crime laws which can usually be wrapped around just about any exploit 
release. It's very hard to prove that you didn't have malicious intent.

: 5. The bug has been reported, a fix has been issued, where's the darn
: problem??

There's a problem? Other than, according to one security researcher on this 
list, the author of this exploit walking on thin ice because he released the 
binary as well, there is no problem to speak of. Well, there's that of 
internet censorship, but that's a dead horse which would require some medical 
attention from real lawyers before it can be beaten again.

: I for one am glad to be able to test it, to have a binary to make a snort
: sig etc etc

Yes, but you are able to compile the exploit code yourself, are you not? I 
assume you are. I also assume that you are capable of writing your own 
exploits if you really had the need for them. And let's not bring up the need 
for Snort after patching. That horse started stinking a long time ago 
already.


elver

: On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Elver Loho wrote:
: > : >Publishing the binary is VX-ing and is criminal. That is very clear.
: > :
: > : Again, you assume this is illegal in every country. This is the
: > : Internet, there are no laws here. ;)
: >
: > Do you think the Internet should be regulated by laws? Or do you think we
: > should rely on self-regulation in the form of moderation and common
: > decency? Because the latter isn't working out as you can see. I'd like to
: > take Ian Clarke's view of freedom of speech and say that I don't mind
: > seeing kiddy porn on the net, but hell, some of that stuff truly IS sick.
: > Cultivating it by giving it the status of freedom of speech would just
: > have unfortunate effects on the society as a whole and on the well-being
: > of its various current and future members. While I don't think the
: > Internet should (or indeed, could) be regulated as a whole, I believe
: > that it would be possible and good to apply laws of the poster's country
: > of origin. What it comes down to in this case: is the release of (binary)
: > exploits allowed in Germany or not?
: >
: > : >To share knowledge with security researchers does not require
: > : >releasing binary executables, professional testers can compile the
: > : >source code for themselves.
: > :
: > : Not everyone has a C/C++ compiler. Even if you do have a C/C++
: > : compiler, you may have to port the code to your OS which takes time. If
: > : you also compile the exploit, everyone can test it. You assume a script
: > : kiddie can't compile an exploit and that the script kidde can't use any
: > : of the exploits sent to this list if it's only in source form. Nice
: > : protection, but it doesn't work.
: >
: > I think you missed the point here. C/C++ compilers are available for free
: > and anyone doing any kind of professional computer security work will
: > have one. You also assume that porting the code to one's OS of choice
: > takes time. However, if the exploit is released as a binary, porting the
: > code to someone's OS of choice is impossible with the exception of being
: > able to run some Windows binaries on Linux and a few other OSes. Besides,
: > this is what we have standards for. Writing source code that will compile
: > on a multitude of operating systems is easy. And with the advent of good
: > interpreted languages such as Python and Perl, it's trivial.
: > As for script kiddies, then they are an unfortunate by-product of our
: > society. They will eventually grow up and join the ranks of blackhats,
: > whitehats or leave the computer security field entirely. Having been one
: > in the past myself, and not being proud of it, I can tell you that
: > nothing will protect such exploits from script kiddies. Some of them have
: > big brains on them and if one of them figures it out, everyone will
: > figure it out. It's a society where the only currency is respect earned
: > by showing other members your level of intelligence. Surprisingly, people
: > like that fit nicely into Eric S. Raymond's mindset of an open-source
: > hacker as portrayed in his collection of essays titled "The Cathedral and
: > the Bazaar."
: >
: > : >Avoid releasing binaries and you will not have problems with the
: > : >authorities.
: > :
: > : I assume you meant to say "Avoid releasing EXPLOIT binaries ..."
: >
: > That sentence was in context. Ripping it out of context to point out such
: > things is pointless.
: >
: >
: > Elver Loho
: >
: > _______________________________________________
: > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
: > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
:
: _______________________________________________
: Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
: Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

-- 
Elver Loho


Powered by blists - more mailing lists