full-disclosure - [SECUNIA] Regarding Secunia Advisory SA13040

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1103723249.23850.7711.camel@ts1.int.secunia.com>
From: tk at secunia.com (Thomas Kristensen)
Subject: [SECUNIA] Regarding Secunia Advisory SA13040

Hi Xavier,

The information in Secunia Advisory SA13040 is based on your own
Changelog at Sourceforge.

SA13040:
http://secunia.com/SA13040

On 30th November you wrote to Secunia that this only affected the 1.4
branch. One hour later Secunia updated the advisory to reflect this and
you received an answer with a confirmation that we had updated the
advisory.

If you spotted any other omissions back then, you could have contacted
us again - obviously you didn't.

Additionally, any information listed in product changelogs is considered
public knowledge. Naturally, we don't contact vendors before issuing
advisories based on information in their own changelogs / release notes.

Also, we are not going to remove this advisory, as it is based on your
own information. However, if you have any relevant additional
information, we will naturally review them and update the advisory
accordingly.

Kind regards,

Thomas Kristensen 

On Wed, 2004-12-22 at 14:08, Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
> Hello there,
> 
> As a maintainer of Caudium Webserver I wishes the following things
> 
> 1- Secunia didn't contact us about this "advisory" you have
>      certainly googled the bugtracker on sourceforge and make this
>      advisory without contacting us before, so this is NOT the rules
>      about security advisory.
> 2- The Advisory it partialy false. You write that it affects Caudium
>      1.x branch. Since there is only one branch about Caudium this is
>      really  disinformation about our software.
> 3- Secunia DIDN'T contact us (if you look at the source there is
>      mailing lists, emails and whatever things to help third party
>      people to contact us.
> 4- The "advisory" (and even the lasted change logs) say all version
>      of Caudium which is false, the ONLY VERSION that have the
>      bug (because IT IS a bug) is 1.4RC1 not 1.4RC2 or even 1.0.xx /
>      1.2.xx branch.
> 5- You didn't TEST by yourself before releasing this advisory, I can
>      consider that as half-done work...
> 
> Because of that. I ask Secunia.com to REMOVE this advisory because all
> its contents is false and inaccurate. I really hope that all
> of other work of Secunia.com is better than the extract I just saw...
> 
> Sincerly Xavier
> --
> Xavier Beaudouin - Unix System Administrator & Projects Leader.
> President of Kazar Organization : http://www.kazar.net/
> Please visit http://caudium.net/, home of Caudium & Camas projects
-- 
Kind regards,

Thomas Kristensen
CTO

Secunia
Toldbodgade 37B
1253 Copenhagen K
Denmark

Tlf.: +45 7020 5144
Fax:  +45 7020 5145