full-disclosure - Re: MS not telling enough

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <893963840-1124386445-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-23445-@engine88>
Date: Thu Aug 18 18:34:22 2005
From: jasonc at science.org (Jason Coombs)
Subject: Re: MS not telling enough

> So there ya go. I suppose you'll
> find something new to complain
> about, or to be rude about.

Whenever possible, yes.

It's amazing how much you support Microsoft. Don't you know that it is in the continued support that you give them that they derive their continued opportunities to harm others?

Of course, the more you and others support Microsoft, the more your expertise grows in value.

Compare your decision-making and ethics to the decisions made by me and others who, after hard work and sacrifice to gain over a decade worth of training, education, skill and work experience with Microsoft products, grew to understand that it causes harm to the entire world for us to apply that skill in any fashion that helps Microsoft.

I swore an oath never again to apply my skills in a way that helps Microsoft.

... or to help any other organization that knowingly causes harm with reckless disregard for the well-being of others.

Integrity, competency, and those who prove they are good people must be supported, and anyone who lacks integrity, competency, and has proven they are bad must be opposed.

To do otherwise demonstrates the same self-serving and wrong thinking that enables Microsoft to con its victims in the first place.

Glad to see Microsoft give an opinion that more clearly explains that their Windows 2000 product is inherently defective and shouldn't be used if you intend to connect it to a computer network.

That was the conclusion that I arrived at after performing a forensic review of IIS 5.0 -- you'll find my analysis contained within my book about IIS security:

http://www.science.org/jcoombs/

http://www.forensics.org/IIS_Security_and_Programming_Countermeasures.pdf

Best,

Jason Coombs
jasonc@...ence.org

-----Original Message-----
From: "Kurt Seifried" <listuser@...fried.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:00:04 
To:<jasonc@...ence.org>
Subject: MS not telling enough

They just updated MS05-039.

 Windows 2000 systems are primarily at risk from this vulnerability. Windows 
2000 customers who have installed the MS05-039 security update are not 
affected by this vulnerability. If an administrator has disabled anonymous 
connections by changing the default setting of the RestrictAnonymous 
registry key to a value of 2, Windows 2000 systems would not be vulnerable 
remotely from anonymous users. However, because of a large application 
compatibility risk, we do not recommend customers enable this setting in 
production environments without first extensively testing the setting in 
their environment. For more information, search for RestrictAnonymous at the 
Microsoft Help and Support Web site.

So there ya go. I suppose you'll find something new to complain about, or to 
be rude about.

-Kurt