Raghu Chinthoju wrote:
I say, "... hey listen! your house entrance door latch isn't strong
enough.. there are only 4 screws instead 16, which is the practice..
you have a risk of some one easily barging into your house ...". For
some reason you don't respond.. I publish it in the local news paper
that ".. Mr. X's door latch is week and any one can break it easily
..." Do you think it is ethical??? I seriously think not.
Isn't it more like saying publicly: All those who have a lock of the
type "X" have a lock which only has 4 screws instead of 16. So that
everybody could check.
But then, what could they do? Maybe not everybody is reading the paper
or has the means to change one's lock.
Some may try to sue the lock vendor, but did he have the means to do
better? Analysing all this may complicate things even further. (And
then: What could would come out of it? Attempting to change all these
locks might bankrupt the vendor, create more unemployed, etc.)
It's not easy to solve all this without leaving one's humanity.
I guess the only lasting solution is to generally strive to aquire more
(human and material) quality.
I also suppose that the recommandation of the Gospel applies here:
First, talk to the people (customers, vendors, crackers) directly and
privately, if they won't listen, take some people with you to talk to
them, if they still don't listen tell the whole community that they do
the bad things they do.
More over, going by my personal experience, I think 5 out of 10
websites[1] would be vulnerable to some kind of security issue, like
running vulnerable versions of the web server, improper input
validation etc, which are just specific them and their clients. Would
would be the interest of general public on such issues?
Probably that people will have more incentive to care about security and
their work, and probably that systems which allow easier updates will
become more widespread.
I don't think
any one from those sites would be part of bugtraq or FD as you
mentioned that they are not vendors. Your publication will only
increase the magnitude of their risk and doesn't do good to any one.
I appreciate your pragmatic approach.
If you have time, try to provide them with the required knowledge or
fix. If you cant, just leave them at their fate and move on..
Raghu
Cheers
Peer
[1] I dont have any data to support this.. If you dont agree, please
do so. You have every right to :)
On 10/6/05, offtopic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi List.
I need your opinion.
Recently I found multiply vulnerabilities in several sites. some sites behold to
security-related firms but not software vendors. I'm trying to contact that companies
under rfpolicy several times but don't receive any response on receive something like
"what injection your talking about?".
I want to know - is it "ethical" to use standard vulnerability disclosure
policies to public websites? Which fird-party can't be user as coordinator, like CERT/CC?
Or in other worlds - who should care about Web-sites security?
Thank you.
(c)oded by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
