full-disclosure - How to Report a Security Vulnerability toMicrosoft

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <041120050722.3870.425A25C6000CC36700000F1E21602807410A9D0B0E039A9B979A9B@att.net>
Date: Mon Apr 11 08:23:17 2005
From: tuytumadre at att.net (tuytumadre@....net)
Subject: How to Report a Security Vulnerability
	toMicrosoft

> this is basicly the same response I had from my OWA advisory ... 
> 
> >VI. VENDOR RESPONSE 
> > 
> >Microsoft has reviewed the issue and has made the determination that 
> >while a bug fix may be implemented in a future service pack, a security 
> >advisory/patch will not be released for this issue 
> 
> therefore, in the interest of everones security, iDefense released the 
> advisory ( as did I ) without a patch being released first. 
> it is quite possible they ( Microsoft ) are trying to make out like they 
> were'nt contacted before said advisory was released.... but that is just my 
> opinion on observation. 
> 
> my 2 bits, 
> 
> Donnie Werner 
> 

That response was given to me when I reported a DoS vulnerability for Internet Explorer (which, might I add, required user interaction). It simply meens that the reported vuln, on a severity scale of 1-10, would pretty much be given a 1. If I'm not mistaken, your OWA vulnerability just spoofs the From address. Although some forms of social engineering MIGHT be possible, there is ultimately no use for something this minor. Think for a second about how much time and resources, including human labor required to produce the patch as well as the technology department employees that must install patches on every computer in large corperations, goes into making a patch. First of all, there's the whole problem with does the solution break 3rd party software. Also theres a problem with cross-platform software (they do have stuff for Mac you know). Another thing they have to worry about is how much money and resources it costs companies other than Microsoft to apply the patches. When common people start seeing a lot of patches, they start losing faith in the software, which is bad for Microsoft. Therefore, the bad outweighs the good when determining whether to provide a patch for something as insignificant as your OWA advisory. I am not saying that I don't respect your efforts. I am just trying to get accross the message that Microsoft is not out to get us. Everyone thinks of them as this big evil monopolistic empire, but they're not. By the way, has anyone read Writing Secure Code by some of the guys from Microsoft? It's pretty interesting, and it offers some insight as to what are considered critical vulnerabilities and what are considered vulnerabilities with little or no severity. Believe me when I tell you (as I have had 1 on 1 conversations with many security vip's at Microsoft Campus) that Microsoft is doing everything that they can to ensure you a safe, enjoyable experience while using their software.

Btw, Mr. Werner, you seem to be among the common group of anti-Microsoft individuals. May I ask what the vendor of your operating system is? What about your browser? Maybe even your word processor or html editor? Uh-huh, that's what I though.

Regards,
Paul
Greyhats Security
http://greyhatsecurity.org

P.S. I do NOT work for Microsoft. I was merely invited to visit their campus and meet some of their people. Very nice bunch of folks they are. We went out to dinner on a couple occasions and had a good time.