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  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: Thu, 22 May 2014 10:33:54 -0700
From: coderaptor <>
To: Tavis Ormandy <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [FD] Beginners error: Hewlett-Packards driver software executes
 rogue binary C:\Program.exe

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Tavis Ormandy <> wrote:
> This is a very minor bug, should they stop engineers working on high
> severity issues and assign them to this? There's no security impact,
> and an Administrator would have to deliberately break the system. If I
> was in charge, I'd tell them to fix real bugs that paying customers
> are reporting - not contrived issues like this.

So the priority would have been different had a "paying" customer
reported this as against someone reporting it for free? :-)

We recently had a "paying" customer do a independent security audit,
and reported this issue for our product. Of course, it was scored high
on CVSS, as always is the case. We were able to explain why the
exploit requires speciality conditions, but eventually had to address
it - closing all the reported issues on the report was far more
important for the customer than listening to reason. We did a
class-fix across the entire product line. It did not take a lot of
time, frankly - which is where my argument came from. Where perception
plays an important role, I find it much easy to fix something if it is
trivially fixable, than argue with someone.


Sent through the Full Disclosure mailing list
Web Archives & RSS:

Powered by blists - more mailing lists