Re: [HERT] Advisory #002 Buffer overflow in lsof

From: Eric Stevens (ejstevenat_private)
Date: Fri Feb 19 1999 - 13:51:52 PST

  • Next message: alecm: "Call to politeness (Re: [HERT] Advisory #002 Buffer overflow in"

    It is my understanding that one of the primary reasons that BugTraq exists
    is so that when someone discovers these bugs, they can utilize the vast
    resources of the collective bugtraq minds.  Perhaps the poster needs a
    solution to this as quickly as possible.  This can easily be expediated if
    someone on the list has already found and dealt with the problem.  I agree
    that this can provide code kiddies with easy hacks, but if you're in a vital
    situation that requires an immediate solution, this may well be the best way
    of taking care of that problem.  I think that some discretion should be
    used, however.  If there is a problem with your software that does not
    require an immediate fix, and you have not yet tried to report it to the
    vendor, I believe that you're jumping the gun and unnecessarily putting
    others at risk.  Situations like that are cases of arrogance; someone wants
    credit for discovering someone else's mistake.
    
    >
    >That some vendors miss problems, or that software in widespread legacy use
    is
    >suddenly found to be vulnerable to a flaw is still not a reason to widely
    >publish a description of a potential attack before the vendor is notified.
    >
    >Yes, some software could be written better.  Yes, some vendors may do a
    poor
    >job of responding to reports.
    >
    >Still, posting attacks or vulnerabilities that are in not in general
    >knowledge and are not being actively exploited and *before* the vendor has
    >been given a chance to respond is not being part of the solution.   It is
    >arrogance or showing off.
    >
    >People who really want to improve security find ways to avoid hurting
    victims
    >and increase protection.   If there is a problem that is not known and not
    >under attack, notifying the vendor and waiting for a valid fix to appear is
    >not going to result in anyone being hurt.   Posting an exploit widely for a
    >previously unknown problem suddenly opens up all the current users to
    attack.
    >
    >That there is (perhaps) a problem in assurance does not forgive this
    problem.
    > Two wrongs do not make a right.
    >
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 14:36:17 PDT