[Full-Disclosure] it's all about timing

From: Florin Andrei (florinat_private)
Date: Wed Jul 31 2002 - 14:26:30 PDT

  • Next message: John Scimone: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] it's all about timing"

    (i'm going to go a little bit further from the HP/Snosoft case, so don't
    be surprised if some of the statements below do not fit 100% in that
    case)
    
    All these problems will vanish if people will choose to disclose
    vulnerabilities in a responsible way.
    Sure, HP's response has been harsh. But every security problem
    (especially when it's accompanied by an exploit) should be reported
    first to the vendor! There should be no exception from this rule. The
    person doing the reporting should give the vendor a reasonable period of
    time to fix it; say, a few weeks or so.
    
    Only if the vendor does nothing in these weeks, only then the
    report/exploit/whatever should be made public.
    
    If hacker H writes a comment on Slashdot, making public an exploit
    against some software made by vendor V, and does not notify V in advance
    (say, 2...4 weeks in advance), and then V sues H, then who's right?
    
    H is right, because (s)he disclosed a vulnerability, and disclosing is
    good.
    V is right, because not being warned in advance, their customers are
    left to the mercy of script kiddies.
    H is wrong, because (s)he's obviously looking for cheap publicity (i
    published a zero-day exploit; mine is bigger), not for improving
    security.
    V is wrong, because they are filing a lawsuit against open disclosure,
    which is not a good thing.
    
    See?
    
    And the solution is so simple: DO NOT publish "zero-day exploits". Give
    the damn vendors an early warning. Only if they are lazy and do nothing
    within a reasonable time (2...4 weeks), only then you are entitled to go
    slashdot-happy.
    
    I'm a big fan of open disclosure, freedom of speech, etc. But people who
    look for cheap publicity are not my favourites. If H is going to publish
    the exploit without early warning, i'll say V has all the rights in the
    world to sue the crap out of H, and put him(her) in jail for one
    thousand years, and i'll applaud that.
    However, if there was an early warning, within a reasonable time, like
    one month or so (unlike some popular security companies did recently),
    and the vendor did nothing and didn't provide a good reason for the
    delay (because such reasons could exist, if you think of it), then H is
    100% entitled to publish whatever exploit he likes.
    
    It's all about timing. It's all about being reasonable.
    
    -- 
    Florin Andrei
    
    "Some times are fuzzier than others." - Dan Farmer & Wietse Venema
    
    _______________________________________________
    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    Full-Disclosureat_private
    http://lists.netsys.com/mailman/listinfo/full-disclosure
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Aug 01 2002 - 05:04:04 PDT