full-disclosure - Publishing exploit code

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]

Date: Thu Jun 30 13:37:46 2005
From: bruen at coldrain.net (bruen@...drain.net)
Subject: Publishing exploit code - what is it good for


Hi Aviram,

  There are two main problems with your analyst friend's position. The 
first is that he has no business deciding for me or anyone else as to 
whether or not my needs are legitimate. I get to decide if I need/want 
something (like exploit code) or not, his arrogance notwithstanding.

 The second point is that he, like most software vendors, have to yet to
figure out that their products are consumer products and should be treated
just like automobiles and toys. Consumer product testing is very public.
Software is the same. We all want to know *exactly* how the product fails,
just like any other consumer product, no exceptions.

 It is no longer about "full disclosure", it's about being just like 
everyone else. There is no difference between how my software gets 
exploited and how my child safety seat fails.

                 cheers, bob  



On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Aviram Jenik wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I recently had a discussion about the concept of full disclosure with one of 
> the top security analysts in a well-known analyst firm. Their claim was that 
> companies that release exploit code (like us, but this is also relevant for 
> bugtraq, full disclosure, and several security research firms) put users at 
> risks while those at risk gain nothing from the release of the exploit.
> 
> I tried the regular 'full disclosure advocacy' bit, but the analyst remained 
> reluctant. Their claim was that based on their own work experience, a 
> security administrator does not have a need for the exploit code itself, and 
> the vendor information is enough. The analyst was willing to reconsider their 
> position if an end-user came forward and talked to them about their own 
> benefit of public exploit codes. Quote: " If I speak to an end-user 
> organization and they express legitimate needs for exploit code, then I'll 
> change my opinion."
> 
> Help me out here. Full disclosure is important for me, as I'm sure it is for 
> most of the people on these two lists. If you're an end-user organization and 
> are willing to talk to this analyst and explain your view (pro-FD, I hope), 
> drop me a note and I'll put you in direct contact.
> 
> Please note: I don't need any arguments pro or against full disclosure; all 
> this has been discussed in the past. I also don't need you to tell me about 
> someone else or some other project (e.g. nessus, snort) that utilizes these 
> exploits. Tried that. Didn't work.
> 
> What I need is a security administrator, CSO, IT manager or sys admin that can 
> explain why they find public exploits are good for THEIR organizations. Maybe 
> we can start changing public opinion with regards to full disclosure, and 
> hopefully start with this opinion leader.
> 
> TIA.
> 
> 

-- 
Dr. Robert Bruen
Cold Rain Technologies 
http://coldrain.net
+1.802.579.6288