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]

Message-ID: <20130420225852.GA11265@neo.hsd1.nh.comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 18:58:52 -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 think the definition of 'needless staff' highly depends on whether you
want 'vulnerable software'.

Educating current developers is absolutely a good idea, but still not
foolproof. The bottom line is that if you want safe software, you need
to invest in proper development. As far as I am concerned, for large
companies like Adobe and Oracle, where software bugs in your product
have a direct impact on the safety of your customers, that involves 
hiring specialized staff.

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 11:49:22PM +0100, Benji wrote:
>    (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?

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