full-disclosure - How T-Mobil's network was compromised

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]

Message-ID: <9b13f6c10502201126356d8896@mail.gmail.com>
From: infsec at gmail.com (Willem Koenings)
Subject: How T-Mobil's network was compromised

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 10:50:47 -0600, Frank Knobbe <frank@...bbe.us> wrote:

 
> The point is that often code works correctly, stable and secure, and
> does what the programmer intended to do. However, sometimes the
> programmer overlooked a condition to check for. The lack of that check
> is not a flaw in the code. A reviewer may not find it because he may not
> conceive a requirement for such a check either. So the code is correct,
> no flaws in it. Yet it will fail under certain conditions.
> We can only check for the existence of those flaws that we are aware of.
> We can not say that tested code does not have flaws that we didn't
> conceive.

Yes, and thats why i said, that original quote is not always true
because it is differently understandable. If i know one specific flaw
or vulnerability, then i specifically can test against presence or
absence of  that specific flaw or vulnerability.

all the best,

W.