full-disclosure - Compromising pictures of Microsoft Internet Explorer!

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: Sun Jul 17 21:28:03 2005
From: tommy at security-protocols.com (Tom Ferris)
Subject: Compromising pictures of Microsoft Internet
	Explorer!

Bernhard Mueller wrote:

>>Mr. Zalewski's statement about the undue burden that Microsoft's
>>investigative processes place on the researcher is indeed accurate.  The
>>only time I've had any success working with Microsoft was when the issue
>>was a straightforward code execution scenario.  Oh wait... even then,
>>I'm blown off.
>>    
>>
>
>the same here... when I mailed them about that COM-vulnerability in IE,
>they came up with "this is not exploitable, bla.." after two weeks of
>internal research
>and all. having a bad morning anyway, I decided to post the advisory and
>see, one day later there's a MS security advisory that "a COM object may
>crash internet explorer" (however, they forgot to mention the public
>bindshell exploit released by the fsirt).
>now recently MS05-37 came out, which somehow doesn't include any credits
>  or mention of the original advisory whatsoever (the reason for that
>being, i presume, the lack of responsibility showed by us).
>I think it's rather strange to hear a billion-dollar software monopolist
>apply to my conscience like "look what you've done, you put our
>customers at risk". they wouldn't give a lame cent on the security of
>their customers if there wasn't a certain media hype about security.
>they care for their image and stock index, and that's about it. and i
>don't see why should be held responsible for that ;)
>
>
>regards,
>
>sk0L
>  
>
I think it all boils down to how black of an eye they want to give 
themselves.  If and when its a clean code execution, they have to say it 
is because you and I all know that when the exploit is published it 
makes then look even worse.  In a way, I am kind of dealing with this 
same scenario.

-- Tom