full-disclosure - Re: what we REALLY learned from WMF

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <43BDB4B5.1060906@pacbell.net>
Date: Fri Jan  6 01:07:29 2006
From: sbradcpa at pacbell.net (Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP])
Subject: Re: what we REALLY learned from WMF

Don't release a beta patch ....

1. it would get patches into reverse engineering faster [hello look what 
happened to the leaked patch]

and 2.

Don't ask for an untested patch if you are not willing to be there in 
the newsgroups, communities and listserves helping the dead bodies after 
a bad patch sir.

Do you do/handle change management in your firm?  Even in my small firm 
I could not handle the 'any time/any day' that patches used to come out 
before.

Be careful of what you ask for sir...because if you get what you 
want.... ensure your firm has the resources to test/deploy/change 
management on a 24 hours a day 7 days a week schedule because exploits 
can be built in less than 20 minutes.

If the security issue has been responsible disclosed, there is a process 
that is needed to build a patch and test the patch.  Some issues take 
more than 'days' sir.  And testing takes time as well, sir.

For my community I want tested patches sir, and I will argue until 
doomsday on that point.  Don't hurt my community with a bad patch or a 
beta patch, sir.

Susan
SBS community member

Gadi Evron wrote:

> What we really learn from this all WMF "thingie", is that when 
> Microsoft wants to, it can.
>
> Microsoft released the WMF patch ahead of schedule
> ( http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/181 )
>
> Yep, THEY released the PATCH ahead of schedule.
>
> What does that teach us?
>
> There are a few options:
> 1. When Microsoft wants to, it can.
>
> There was obviously pressure with this 0day, still ? most damage out 
> there from vulnerabilities is done AFTER Microsoft releases the patch 
> and the vulnerability becomes public.
>
> 2. Microsoft decided to jump through a few QA tests this time, and 
> release a patch.
>
> Why should they be releasing BETA patches?
> If they do, maybe they should release BETA patches more often, let 
> those who want to - use them. It can probably also shorten the testing 
> period considerably.
> If this patch is not BETA, but things did just /happen/ to progress 
> more swiftly.. than maybe we should re-visit option #1 above.
>
> ...
>
> Maybe it?s just that we are used to sluggishness. Perhaps it is time 
> we, as users and clients, started DEMANDING of Microsoft to push 
> things up a notch.
>
> ...
>
> Put in the necessary resources, and release patches within days of 
> first discovery. I?m willing to live with weeks and months in 
> comparison to the year+ that we have seen sometimes. Naturally some 
> problems take longer to fix, but you get my drift.
>
> It?s just like with false positives? as an industry we are now used to 
> them. We don?t treat them as bugs, we treat them as an ?acceptable 
> level of?, as I heard Aviram mention a few times.
>
> ...
>
> The rest is in my blog entry on the subject:
> http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/182
>
>     Gadi.
>

-- 
Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?  
http://www.threatcode.com