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: <CAEJizbYunADQnAmmX0i4GnNGd2JcBAQ67Fu-HbqDY63okHL3sA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 00:41:10 +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)

(For example,
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2cXGaaHnqyMJ:www.computerworld.com/s/article/9235954/Researchers_find_critical_vulnerabilities_in_Java_7_Update_11+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk)


On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:37 AM, Benji <me@...ji.com> wrote:

> Because security engineers are different to a QA department you originally
> suggested, and you seem to be very ideologist about the scenarios. As we've
> seen, Oracle's Java product has security engineers and this has not
> prevented flaws.
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Bryan <bryan@...wildhats.com> wrote:
>
>> "Your 5-chained-0day-to-code-exec, in my opinion, does not count as
>> negligence  and comes from the developer effectively not being a
>> security engineer"
>> Solution: Hire security engineers.
>>
>> "In my opinion we are not at the stage in industry where we can
>> consider/expect any developer to think through each implication of
>> each feature they implement"
>> Solution: Hire security engineers to think through each implication.
>>
>> Why are we disagreeing?
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:11:51AM +0100, Benji wrote:
>> >    Your proposition was that developers will always make mistakes and
>> >    introduce stupid problems, so a QA team/process is necessary. While I
>> >    agree that there should be a QA/'audit' at some point, it shouldnt
>> be the
>> >    stage that is relied on. Applications that are flawed from the design
>> >    stage onwards will become expenditure blackholes, especially after
>> going
>> >    through any QA process which should highlight these.
>> >    Potentially yes, but most of the larger companies appear to already
>> do
>> >    this. A quick search through google shows that Oracle atleast already
>> >    have, and/or are actively hiring security engineers involved with
>> Java
>> >    (for example).
>> >    Flaws will always pop up and I think we may now be bordering on
>> discussing
>> >    what counts as negligence in some cases. Your
>> 5-chained-0day-to-code-exec,
>> >    in my opinion, does not count as negligence and comes from the
>> developer
>> >    effectively not being a security engineer, but doing the job of a
>> >    developer. In my opinion we are not at the stage in industry where
>> we can
>> >    consider/expect any developer to think through each implication of
>> each
>> >    feature they implement, without a strong security background as much
>> as we
>> >    may appreciate it. Negligence in my opinion of security
>> vulnerabilities is
>> >    having obvious format string bugs/buffer overflows when handling user
>> >    input for example, or incorrect permissions, or just a lack of
>> >    consideration to obvious problems. Developer training should pick up
>> on
>> >    the obvious bugs, or atleast give developers an understanding of how
>> to
>> >    handle users/user input in a safe manner, and know the implications
>> of not
>> >    doing so.
>> >
>> >    On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Bryan <bryan@...wildhats.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >      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.
>>
>
>

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/