full-disclosure - Re: VUPEN Security Research - Adobe Flash Player RTMP Data Processing Object Confusion (CVE-2013-2555)

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]

Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 18:35:44 -0400
From: Bryan <bryan@...wildhats.com>
To: Benji <me@...ji.com>
Cc: Full-Disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: VUPEN Security Research - Adobe Flash Player
 RTMP Data Processing Object Confusion (CVE-2013-2555)

I am just saying that developers and designers make mistakes and
that there is no getting around that. Rather than relying on the
benevolent 0day researchers from the sky publicly disclosing their
vulnerabilities, more responsible QA testing within the company will
prevent many of these vulnerabilities from occurring in the first
place. Or do you have a better idea?

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 11:06:33PM +0100, Benji wrote:
>    Let me expand on that, otherwise I'm sure it's unclear.
>    Is your suggestion, to remove the worry of developers making mistakes, to
>    add another human process after it and rely on this to remove all
>    mistakes?
> 
>    On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Benji <me@...ji.com> wrote:
> 
>      Yes, after the people that can make mistakes, we should have people that
>      are incapable of making mistakes. I totally agree, what a good idea.
> 
>      On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Bryan <bryan@...wildhats.com> wrote:
> 
>        The code monkeys can make mistakes as long as there is a process to
>        detect and remedy their mistakes before things get shipped. Hiring
>        decent application security researchers to audit their code would be a
>        good start.
>        On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 09:51:40AM -0400, Lee wrote:
>        > On 4/20/13, Sergio Alvarez <shadown@...il.com> wrote:
>        > > Why instead of discussing about ethics about 0days, don't you
>        discuss about
>        > > responsible DEVELOPMENT instead?
>        > > If products where properly designed and developed there wouldn't
>        be 0days
>        > > for them, would them?
>        >
>        > Only if the designers & developers were perfect and never made
>        mistakes.
> 
>        _______________________________________________
>        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/