full-disclosure - Re: GOOD for Enterprise (GMA) below 2.0.2 vulnerable to MITM

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAH8yC8=roV+NQnR8ijj4WAE=Rnve3PTonP6kGcWDRq0=hy3qdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 04:18:59 -0500
From: Jeffrey Walton <noloader@...il.com>
To: Georgi Guninski <guninski@...inski.com>
Cc: "full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: GOOD for Enterprise (GMA) below 2.0.2
 vulnerable to MITM

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Georgi Guninski <guninski@...inski.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 05:47:28PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Thierry Zoller <Thierry@...ler.lu> wrote:
>> >
>> > RANT
>> > ----
>> > The  world  of  mobile  applications  appear to have become one where vulnerability
>> > disclosure    and   awareness  are  not  necessary.  Until  there  are fully automated
>> > updates  and  refusal  of  service for outdated applications I see the
>> > need for disclosure.
>> Mobile is a step backwards in software security (back to about the
>> mid-1990s) due to patching. Or more correctly, lack thereof. I've been
>> bitching about it for years.
>>
>> I'm convinced the only way to fix it is through legislation and
>> software liability laws. Waiting for companies to "do the right
>> thing"
>
> liability laws might kill a lot of OSS warez as a side effect.
Perhaps. I believe it will improve those that remain (survival of the fittest?).

Folks like Google and Red Hat might have to take a proactive approach
to limit their liability. It might hurt folks like Dan Rosenberg, who
make their careers out of finding Comp Sci 101 bugs in the kernel.
(Nothing against Dan - he does a great job).

> btw, m$ lusers agree to "CLASS ACTION WAIVER":
> http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-live/microsoft-services-agreement
>
> ==============
> IF YOU LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES, SECTION 10 CONTAINS A BINDING ARBITRATION CLAUSE AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER. IT AFFECTS YOUR RIGHTS ABOUT HOW TO RESOLVE ANY DISPUTE WITH MICROSOFT. PLEASE READ IT.
> 10.4. Class action waiver. Any proceedings to resolve or litigate any dispute in any forum will be conducted solely on an individual basis. Neither you nor Microsoft will seek to have any dispute heard as a class action or in any other proceeding in which either party acts or proposes to act in a representative capacity. No arbitration or proceeding will be combined with another without the prior written consent of all parties to all affected arbitrations or proceedings.
> ===============
Its not just Microsoft.

The courts (in the US) are starting to limit those obscene Terms of
Service. http://www.topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/2633-zapposcom-loses-arbitration-bid-in-data-breach-class-action-lawsuit.
Its another legal absurdity to me: you are given a protection, then
corporate america tries to get you to wave it. I guess that's why my
undergrad and grad degrees are computer science and not law.

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/