Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: Administrivia: Binary Executables w/o Source


From: "Anthony Saffer" <anthony () safferconsulting com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:11:14 -0700

I belong to a few security groups that develop "fixer" patches for various
vunerabilities that hit the net. In those groups, because running a black
box binary is so dangerous, we only are allowed to post patch source. Most
people can get their hands on a free compiler and we provide explicit
instructions on how to compile the patches. It works very well and we don't
have to worry about people sending binaries...

Just My $0.02...

Anthony Saffer
SCS Consulting Services
www.safferconsulting.com


----- Original Message -----
From: Drew Copley <dcopley () eeye com>
To: <full-disclosure () lists netsys com>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 3:26 PM
Subject: RE: [Full-disclosure] Administrivia: Binary Executables w/o Source


If anybody is stupid enough to run a binary file from here they deserve
any negative consequences which may result from that.

Okay, I know other people are thinking that because it is just so true.

This said, someone sent a copy of this lastest fixer msblast variant. I
appreciated that. But, proper netiquette says to not send binaries nor
pictures to internet lists (newsgroups or mailing lists). It is best to
send by url, such urls are very valuable.

(Personally, I have never cared about binaries nor pictures being sent
as long as their size were small... It is just html email which I hate.)

Just some food for thought from a contrary viewpoint.


-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com
[mailto:full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com] On Behalf Of
S . f . Stover
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 9:06 AM
To: Len Rose
Cc: Raj Mathur; full-disclosure () lists netsys com
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Administrivia: Binary
Executables w/o Source


On 18 Aug 03 03:40:34PM Len Rose[len () netsys com] wrote:
: My message was not about the size ofd
: the file but rather about the sheer useless re-transmission
: of a binary (any executable) that no one in their right mind
: would actually run which is why I suggested that source code
: should be included next time.

Would that really matter though?  I mean, how would I know
that the binary included came from the attached source?

Plus, I do have quarantined machines I blow away and rebuild
regularly that I don't mind putting unknown binaries on from
time to time.  Any my mileage definitely does vary  ;-)

Just my 0.02.  I figure there's no list like FD for unknown
binaries...

--
attica () stackheap org
GPG Key ID: 0xF8F859D0
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0xF8F859D0&op=index


"There is no such thing as right and wrong, there's just popular
opinion." -Jeffrey Goines

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html


_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html


Current thread: