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 23:49:22 +0100
From: Benji <me@...ji.com>
To: Bryan <bryan@...wildhats.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)

(in my opinion)


On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Benji <me@...ji.com> wrote:

> Yes, a better idea would be to educate and inform developers. At a
> business level atleast this will a) save extra expenditure on needless
> staff  and extra departments b) result in faster turn arounds as there's
> then less time needed for remediation. At a technical level, it will
> atleast result in less 'dumb' bugs (assuming training and education is
> effective and relevant).
>
> I think at this point expecting software to have 0 flaws or being under
> the illusion that software will ever be flawless in it's current state is
> like wishing really hard before bed every night that genetics and evolution
> will make you a unicorn.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Bryan <bryan@...wildhats.com> wrote:
>
>> 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/
>>
>
>

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/