Message-Id: <EDFBF3E6-AA5E-11DB-BB14-0003937570C8@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 23:24:23 +0200
From: fanboy_macpwnie@...oo.co.uk
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: 'Rixstep still aren't as leet as they thought
	they were'

<http://rixstep.com/2/20070121,00.shtml>

Oh it's been fixed all right - Mr Anonymous with the Bent didn't stay 
around long enough to find out.

What's interesting of course is that Mr Anonymous 'backdated' the 
advisory to make the company look bad. This is not 'full disclosure' - 
this is the typical immature behaviour of an Apple fanboy.

He got excited on 15 January, did in fact find a bug, and then searched 
the entire Rixstep site for mention of the product. The earliest he 
could find was 23 November last year. So he 'backdated' his advisory to 
the day after.

Unfortunately this cowardly fool didn't take the time to consider 
several things.

- There are serial numbers on all SF advisories. Several dozen before 
his are all dated 15 January 2007. It becomes obvious he's backdating.

- The product Mr Bent tested is not the product released on 23 November.

- Mr Bent would have the world think he actually contacted Rixstep 
prior to going public with his 'nasty bug'. But in such case he got his 
hands on a copy of a product two weeks prior to it being written.

As with Steve Jobs, Nancy Heinen, and Fred Anderson, backdating is 
generally a Bad Idea(tm).

But the bug has indeed been fixed and Security Focus have been alerted 
to the issue with the behaviour of this person and corrected the 
appropriate records.

Basically all this proves is that this fanboy - behaving fanboyer than 
others - has a sick mind - something most of us already knew. But now 
it's out in the open. His goal was to make MOAB and Rixstep look bad 
and in the end it's only he and his fanboy friends who look bad. Again, 
very typical of the way things go for Apple fanboys.

The objective of full disclosure is to close security gaps in software 
so users are not victimised. It is not to be able to strike back at 
people like MOAB (or Rixstep who support their efforts) who dare 
criticise their beloved platform.

Apple fanboys have attacked Brian Krebs, Dan Gillmor, Andrew Stone, 
Avie Tevanian, George Ou, Kieren McCarthy - and now MOAB and Rixstep - 
where other vendors such as Microsoft simply say 'yes we know; we are 
going to fix it' and Microsoft software users take a calm and rational 
stance to it all.

Wikipedia's definition of 'fanboy' is as follows.

'Fanboy is a term used to describe an individual (usually male though 
the feminine version fangirl may be used for females) who is utterly 
devoted to a single fannish subject or to a single point of view within 
that subject, often to the point where it is considered an obsession. 
Fanboys remain loyal to their particular obsession, disregarding any 
factors that differ from their point of view. They are also typically 
hateful to the opposing brand or competition of their obsession 
regardless of its merits or achievements.'

You can't cure a fanboy just as you couldn't convince the citizens of 
Jonestown to come home and save themselves - and they will become 
aggressive to those who try to help them. Wiki's words are good here - 
this is just a fact of life.

Bottom line? Rixstep are just as 'leet' as they claimed: their stance 
is not merely that they write better code and do more QA than other 
companies but that they're actively soliciting bug hunts - they won't 
hide in the PR department like some other companies. If this is 'leet' 
then all software companies should try to be as 'leet': software users 
would only benefit.

Also of note is that the cowardly Mr Bent, attempting to take the 
ethical high ground, still hides behind 'anonymity'. If everything were 
so above board and he felt no shame and disgust at his behaviour - then 
why hide? Rixstep do in fact offer rewards for people who find bugs - 
and have given away two products already as a result - but they're not 
about to give them to nasty anonymous Apple idiots.

This post has little relevance to FD but OTOH neither did any of the 
rantings of this lunatic. It's merely to set the record straight. Watch 
out for fanboys and if you're contemplating migrating to OS X (most 
likely you're not) consider you will run into these suicide users all 
over the place.

PS. It should also be pointed out that this lunatic's supposed 'proof 
of concept' actually proved nothing and was in fact extremely 
amateurish code. Yes he did discover a bug, but his advisory and proof 
of concept code had even more (and more dangerous) bugs. In a word: it 
had 'fanboy' written all over it.

His claim he produced a denial of service even if his exploit failed 
basically sealed his fate: that's about the dumbest thing ever posted 
to SF or FD or anywhere ever. When you have two hot ('for (;;)') loops 
running in side by side processes and both acting on the file system of 
course you get yourself in a tight situation - but no one but a fanboy 
would ever try something so immature - this is totally independent of 
any external software you claim to be testing.

And when you have something like 'system("/bin/cat > <target> 
<source>")' inside a compilable file you know you're dealing with 
someone very special - and thankfully extremely unusual.

Nobody's coming home from Jonestown. Fanboys are fanboys and will 
remain fanboys - and they get fanboyer all the time.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists