full-disclosure - Re: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC

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: <CALx_OUAHuLYW3yZS5YVg+sVV=Rp85NXD4bNnXVmUzHAkbRBvkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:47:19 -0700
From: Michal Zalewski <lcamtuf@...edump.cx>
To: TImbrahim@...hemail.com
Cc: full-disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>,
 M Kirschbaum <pr0ix@...oo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC

> Is this treated with the same way that says that Remote File Inclusion is not a security issue ?

I'm not sure how RFI came into play on this thread - the original
report wasn't about RFI.

I don't have an agenda here; I'm just trying to get to the bottom of
it and make sure that we converge on a common understanding of the
issue. As in any argument, it's fairly likely that one of us is wrong,
and I accept that it could very well be me - I have been wrong quite a
few times in my life, and it's always a valuable learning opportunity.

I think it's unfortunate that the thread has devolved into various
accusations and credential-slinging, because it reduces the likelihood
of such a productive outcome. Please feel free to ping me directly any
time, though - I'm happy to chat.

Cheers,
/mz

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