Message-ID: <3a166c090603290529u630da57fh89e9a317b39074a7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed Mar 29 14:30:09 2006
From: n3td3v at gmail.com (n3td3v)
Subject: Security Alert: Unofficial IE patches appear
	oninternet

On 3/29/06, GroundZero Security <fd@....org> wrote:

>  Oh shut up i thought you have unsubscribed from this list ?
> You claim that your imaginary people work for microsoft,
> so why dont you simply tell them to act up instead of
> annoying everyone here on FD. Stop pretending and get lost.
>

"Imaginary and pretending"... I like that one.


>  Inofficial patches are not evil no matter what you think about them.
> You have no clue anyway....do you even know what a patch is ?
> Unofficial patches are just ment as initial help until a proper patch
> is out, not for mission critical systems. Microsoft needs time to
> develope a proper patch as they can't simply throw together a patch,
> but also have to test if it wont break any existing software etc as
> windows is so windely used on tons of different platforms and along
> with so many Software products, that they have to make sure its all
> stable. Sure they cant always have perfect results, but if you have
> to bitch so much about it, why dont you write a proper patch?
> oh yes i forgot, you can't code.......'
>


You should hear yourself. You say you've been around since 1994 but you
ramble some spit about basic knowledge about "all platforms need to be
tested". Yeah, we all know this, like this is FD, we all have expertise in
this field.



>
> Another funny thing you said to someone:
>  "There you go on assuming my knowledge base, even though i've
> been around the security scene longer than you."
>
>  Well i remember your old mails where you bragged about having
> +6 years expirience in the security field. so you came around
> 1999/2000 ..i started in 1994, so i can lay down the same attitude
>

To be honest I DON'T care when you started, but you don't come across as
someone who has worked in the industry since 1994, far from it. Maybe you
should look at your own performance on FD, before you start bashing the
n3td3v security group and the founder.



>  on you kiddie, isnt it? Besides of that, it doesnt matter if you hang
> on irc since 20 years, it matters what you did in that time.
>

IRC? You're having a laugh right...

 Others learn and improove, while you just try to look cool with your
> imaginary group, yet you still expect that someone takes you serious here.
>

You seem to think a handful of trolls on FD (you) bashing the n3td3v group
is representative of anything credible.

----- Original Message -----

>  *From:* n3td3v <n3td3v@...il.com>
> *To:* full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
>  *Sent:* Tuesday, March 28, 2006 8:46 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Full-disclosure] Security Alert: Unofficial IE patches
> appear oninternet
>
>
>  On 3/28/06, Matthew Murphy <mattmurphy@...rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: RIPEMD160
> >
> >
> > Newsflash, idiot: you're not the first one to think of this.  Plenty of
> > people at Microsoft beat you to the punch.  When the threat environment
> > created by a vulnerability is as serious as this case and the available
> > code-independent workarounds (i.e., other than patches) are so poor,
> > Microsoft will be inclined strongly against holding on to this patch.
>
>
> Matthew firstly starts off his rant by claiming n3td3v is an idiot and
> then uses some clever words to talk about something thats not entirely
> clear, but I guess what he is trying to say is hidden inbetween his wording.
>
>
> I'd venture to bet that Microsoft will make this patch available as soon
> > as they're confident in the quality of it.  Their first patch day is, at
> >
> > this point, nothing more than a benchmark.  They might beat it but they
> > almost certainly won't fall short of it unless there are major quality
> > issues.
>
>
> You would venture to bet? Theres no betting involved. They do only release
> a patch after Q.A testing. Although they can in certain situations bring
> forward a patch sooner. Its not about beating a patch day. Microsoft often
> have patches ready but wait for the corporate known about Tuesday and
> Thursday press release days that all corporations globally adhere to in the
> world of security and otherwise.
>
> The other thing that you obviously have no clue of is that even a
> > release on patch Tuesday is "out-of-cycle" as far as Microsoft's test
> > processes are concerned.  Microsoft normally issues IE patches on a two
> > month cycle -- February, April, June, August, October, December.
>
>
>
> The other thing I "obviously" have no clue about? There you go on assuming
> my knowledge base, even though i've been around the security scene longer
> than you. Sure, Microsoft have a "comfortable" release cycle, although thats
> just to space everything out in their minds as a corporation. Remember the
> days before Microsoft started patch tuesday? Yeah, they would release
> critical patches whenever they see fit. To me the mistake was that they
> started "Patch Tuesday", so as a corporation, even though its a good thing
> for normal bug fixes to be issues only once monthly, it makes it harder for
> Microsoft to release a patch out of cycle for "critical flaws". You seem to
> think theres not employees at Microsoft who don't want to release patches
> inbetween patch tuesday. You're wrong, behind the scenes at Microsft right
> now theres loads of people saying, "we want to release inbetween patch
> tuesday for critical flaws, but because we've invented patch tuesday for
> flaws generally, the more we do release patches inbeween patch tuesday, the
> more it weakness to our patch tuesday policy" "We think patch tuesday is
> good, but it restricts us to push out patches inbetween that, because we
> want to keep credibility to our patch release day for all other flaws". So
> you see, its not that Microsoft don't agree with out of cycle patch
> releases, its just they don't want to spoil their overall patch tuesday
> policy. Microsoft don't like to send out mixed messages, so until the higher
> folks at MS start listening, then patch tuesday will continue to pose a
> threat for when critical remote access flaws come along.
>
> You can bet that they don't release patches for non-public
> > vulnerabilities with a mere 20 days of testing (and that assumes they
> > started on the patch the day the issue was published).  When I reported
> > a vulnerability in August that was (originally) scheduled for a
> > bulletin, Microsoft said that if it made a bulletin, the earliest would
> > be December.  That was just shy of four months, and they weren't even
> > certain it would make that release cycle.  Microsoft doesn't have that
> > kind of time here, and it's a damn sure bet that they aren't taking it.
>
>
>
> We're not talking about non-public flaws! I'm talking about 0-day that
> goes into the wild, where exploit code is then release, and where media hype
> is created and then eeye and the others create a bigger security issue than
> the intial flaw.
>
> Some good documentation on Microsoft's patch development processes (and
> > how they vary for products) would help you avoid this ignorant and
> > noobish mistake and put an end to ignorant media reporting about how
> > Microsoft is sticking to its schedule with this patch -- which couldn't
> > be much further from the truth.
>
>
> Microsoft are about to relase out of its cycle again for this IE
> vulnerability, accroding to my contacts.The patch tuesday policy is only
> just a new thing, they would before release a patch at any time of their
> choosing. Because of patch tuesday, it now makes it more difficult for them
> to break this, as you would know if you had worked for a multinational
> before, they don't like to backtrack on a policy which is more than
> acceptable for non critical flaws, its only the issues of critical flaws
> hitting the wild, where exploit code is released, where media hype is
> created and then where folks like eeye release a patch, which will only ever
> be avaiable to the security community and all of its malicious users, where
> script kids can patch systems for their own evil agendas, and or also
> seperate, phishers can release bogus eeye patches, or release a patch under
> another name with malicious code inserted, a lot of the time to execute
> another malicious code, unrelated to the intial exploit code vulnerability.
>
> I guess it's easier to bash Microsoft for made-up, delusional reasons
> > like "they're standing and watching while people get 0wn3d!" than for
> > the real reasons (i.e., a six-month "standard procedure" patch process).
> > Those in the latter category actually require some work to understand,
> > and apparently don't give people the instant ego boost of thinking
> > they're "taking on the monopoly".
>
>
>
> NO, i'm not anti-Microsoft, lots of my friends work there. The only evil
> is folks like eEye providing tools (patches) to the security community,
> where legitimate users will never get a hold of, but you can bet malicious
> users will and use the patch to their advantage.
>
> Microsoft only ever releases out of its new patch tuesday cycle when eeye
> and all the others release third party patches. If you really were pro
> Microsoft, you would be behind me in calling for all third party patches to
> be slammed as a bad thing for Microsoft and the security community and the
> public at large. Theres folks at Microsoft in complete agreement at what i'm
> saying. Who agree, like me, that patch tuesday is a good thing normally, but
> as soon as the evil third patches are released, then Microsoft has no choice
> but to release out of cycle.
>
> If you had contacts at Microsoft like I do, you would realise everything
> i'm saying is in line with what individuals within ms are thinking.
>
> Patch Tuesday = Good before third party patches appear
> Third party patch = Evil
> Patch Tuesday = Bad for everyone after third party patches appear, even
> Microsoft, because they hate breaking out of the Patch Tuesday policy, even
> though a lot of athe time a patch is ready for distrubution, Microsoft don't
> want to break out of company policy, even though indviduals at Micrsoft wish
> it was easier for a multinational to backtrack on its policy for critical
> *public 0-day*
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20060329/7e80984c/attachment.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists