RE: W2K source "leaked"?

[<tlarholm () pivx com>]

I know some people have been talking about this as being a false news
story, but now there is confirmation from Redmond.

http://www.komotv.com/stories/29778.htm




Regards

Thor Larholm
Senior Security Researcher
PivX Solutions
24 Corporate Plaza #180
Newport Beach, CA 92660
http://www.pivx.com
thor () pivx com
Phone: +1 (949) 231-8496
PGP: 0x5A276569
6BB1 B77F CB62 0D3D 5A82 C65D E1A4 157C 5A27 6569

PivX defines "Proactive Threat Mitigation". Get a FREE Beta Version of
Qwik-Fix
<http://www.qwik-fix.net> 



-----Original Message-----
From: Gadi Evron [mailto:ge () egotistical reprehensible net] 
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 1:49 PM
To: bugtraq () securityfocus com
Cc: full-disclosure () lists netsys com; Thor Larholm
Subject: W2K source "leaked"?


A couple of days ago a friend of mine drew my attention to the source 
making rounds on the encrypted p2p networks, I was hoping it would take 
a bit longer for it to be "out", but that was just day-dreaming.

Thor Larholm just gave me this URL, as you can notice, the server is
busy: http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=17509

I never believed in 0-days. "New" or more to the point 
un-known-to-the-public exploits and vulnerabilities exist and are being 
used.
In my opinion "0-days" virtually don't exist. It's usually either some 
vulnerability that is long known and a COP or a worm is created. Or 
exploits that will nearly never see the "public" but exist and are used 
by few individuals.. but now... I don't know.

How often does a brand new exploit come out without prior warning and
"attack" the net?

*If* this really is the.. _real_ source code for W2K (and according to 
the article NT4 as well).... we'll see what happens next.

People didn't need help finding vulnerabilities in Windows before, but 
it just became a whole lot easier and a lot less demanding on the "m4d 
#4x0r 5k111z".

I can't really say that the article is right and the source was "leaked"

or "stolen". The source is being sold/given (?) for years now to EDU's 
and commercial companies for research purposes (not to mention China..).

I suppose foul play is always possible.

Can anyone confirm this is the real source code? How about a press 
release? :)

        Gadi Evron