full-disclosure - Re: Microsoft Office Excel 2010 memory corruption

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: <CAPMrQTTR3qu-u4+74V7_Zg4HVH4ASWuPWV02Pdq2a0tcSibNRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:22:08 +0200
From: Julius Kivimäki <julius.kivimaki@...il.com>
To: noloader@...il.com
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Microsoft Office Excel 2010 memory corruption

Would you consider software that is used to open local documents and
crashes when you feed it corrupt data defective?

2012/10/29 Jeffrey Walton <noloader@...il.com>

> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Peter Ferrie <peter.ferrie@...il.com>
> wrote:
> >> How can i make sure a crash is not exploitable? (( The short answer is
> >> simple assume every crash is exploitable and just fix it.))
> >
> > No, it costs a lot of time and money to fix even one issue.
> > We don't want to waste it on something that isn't exploitable.
> There are at least four problems with this argument. First, the
> argument basically says "defective software is OK." I find that to be
> negligent (perhaps grossly negligent), and it sets off red flags for
> me.
>
> Second, if a shop did not get the basic coding correct, what
> credibility does the shop have when they claim its not security
> related and cannot be exploited. Often, the folks claiming something
> defective is OK are either too dumb or too ignorant to realize they
> are wrong. We saw the same with attacks on MD5 from the a number of
> folks, including the CAs.
>
> Third, its often easier to fix problems like this than spend the
> man-hours studying it. Architectural defects are a different story
> though.
>
> Fourth, the software does not meet basic merchanibility standards.
> Would you accept an auto defect where your windshield wipers did not
> work on occasion?
>
> If a shop gets it wrong too often, I ban the company's software. For
> example, I no longer suffer Adobe's bugs on my network because its not
> worth my time to shut down the vectors.
>
> Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

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