full-disclosure - Windoze almost managed to 200x repeat 9/11

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: mvp at joeware.net (joe)
Subject: Windoze almost managed to 200x repeat 9/11

I agree you should be able to rely on the products.

What is apparently at fault here is a vendor using a value from a system
function incorrectly or if you wish, using an incorrect system function for
their purpose. I'm pretty confident they weren't rebooting these servers for
Windows to function, it was a matter of the resetting the tick count for the
application.

  joe

-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com
[mailto:full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com] On Behalf Of Frank Knobbe
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 11:01 AM
To: Barry Fitzgerald
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Windoze almost managed to 200x repeat 9/11

On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 09:15, Barry Fitzgerald wrote:
> The article doesn't make the situation entirely clear.  Did the app 
> intentionally restart the system and foul it?  Did the restart occur 
> because the app crashed?

No, no, the problem was "human error" because a tech didn't reboot the
system. It's clearly operator error, not a problem with any systems at all. 

Unfortunately, there is some truth in this. We (and not just the media) are
starting to put blame on humans far too quickly. Is this justified?
On one hand, they are only tools for us to do our job. On the other hand,
they are products that we should be able to rely on. Who do we blame?
Operators or products?

Cheers.
Frank