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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <43BDB605.9010003@linuxbox.org>
Date: Fri Jan  6 00:40:52 2006
From: ge at linuxbox.org (Gadi Evron)
Subject: Re: what we REALLY learned from WMF

Adrian Marsden wrote:
> This is a silly post.... What are you trying to prove? That in some cases a company can test a patch quicker than in others?
> 
> MS understood the issue, promised a fix on their scheduled date and did better than expected.... So you criticise them....
> 
> Way to go.... Make it so they can never win.... then they won't bother... and we all know who suffers then....

I may chose MS as an example that companies CAN do better. I believe 
this "fluke" gave us the perfect example of how security incidents 
should be handled.

Why should we now settle for less?

Naturally, each problem has its own issues and time demands. That 
doesn't change the fact of the matter.

	Gadi.