| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4F32A31A.4050305@inshell.net> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:30:18 +0100 From: Info <info@...hell.net> To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: posting xss notifications in sites vs software packages A general question: is it legal to search for XSS vulnerabilities on custom websites ? Julien On 02/08/2012 04:37 PM, Packet Storm wrote: > On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 06:18:24PM -0500, b wrote: >> What is the point of posting notifications of XSS vulnerabilities in >> specific web sites instead of alerts of xss vulns in specific software >> packages? >> >> This question was prompted by all the postings by that vulnerability lab >> stuff. > In some cases, a cross site scripting vulnerability in a given site can affect a large user base and the code is custom to the business. As an example, a cross site scripting issue in gmail is probably more catastrophic than a cross site scripting vuln in some half-rate CMS. Not to mention there's the other situation where small website design shops repackage other open source code, brand it as part of their offering, and never provide updates to their customers. The Internet is a mess. $0.02 > > -Todd > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists