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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0507161922570.25711@forced.attrition.org> Date: Sun Jul 17 00:29:20 2005 From: jericho at attrition.org (security curmudgeon) Subject: RE: Why Vulnerability Databases can't do everything : So I think that there should be a government agency that coordinates : this shit : I call for federal government intervention. Microsoft has abused all of : us for the last time. I have a list of a dozen bugs in Microsoft Access; : and I know of one bug in SQL Server that those cornholers just wont fix. : I mean-- SQL AUTHENTICATION IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SECURE. RIGHT? This is good in theory, bad in practice (historically). Consider that we already have government coordination for vulnerabilities. In fact, did you know we have it half a dozen times over? CERT The CERT/CC is funded primarily by the U.S. Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, along with a number of other federal civil agencies. Other funding comes from the private sector. As part of the Software Engineering Institute, we receive some funds from the primary sponsor of the SEI, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology. CIAC U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) funded CVE CVE is sponsored by the National Cyber Security Division (NCSD) at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. US-CERT is the operational arm of the NCSD. ICAT ICAT is maintained by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. US-CERT US-CERT is part of the Department of Homeland Security Little overlap? You bet there is. DHS is spending money on two of the five listed above, which are just the biggest and most well known. There are other incident response teams for other government agencies, some of which maintain their own vulnerability databases. Consolidation? Has there been any effort made to consolidate these? Not that I have heard of, but there might have been (and it got nowhere). So the U.S. government clearly sees a need for this type of activity, it's just that it has not been implemented that well and there has been relatively little coordination between the agencies and sources of funding. Imagine one database being funded by and worked on all of the people/agencies above.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists