full-disclosure - How secure is software X?

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]

Message-ID: <242a0a8f0605121021h269000afr6d50386241980539@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri May 12 18:21:54 2006
From: eaton.lists at gmail.com (Brian Eaton)
Subject: How secure is software X?

On 5/12/06, Blue Boar <BlueBoar@...evco.com> wrote:
> Brian Eaton wrote:
> > On 5/11/06, Blue Boar <BlueBoar@...evco.com> wrote:
> >> Don't we fairly quickly arrive at all products passing all the standard
> >> tests, and "passing" no longer means anything?
> >
> > I believe that point is called "success."
>
> I was thinking more like all their "security" efforts only went to
> making sure the test reports clean, and they get declared "secure".  Now
> you have two products that pass the tests regardless of relative
> security, or whether one of them was carefully developed with security
> in mind.  Not my definition of success.

Rather than being declared "secure", they should probably be declared
"not trivially broken with any of the standard tools."  Having "not
trivially broken" as a barrier to entry for software would be a major
improvement.

- Brian