it's all about timing

[full-disclosure () lists netsys com (Don)]

well, by your own admission, HP legal department was strong arming you,
which is just plain wrong, it seems to me, from what i have read around here
and other lists, story is not smeared at all, my understanding of the story
was and still is, HP thinks they are too big and have good lawyers, and thus
think they have a right threaten you and the public. and according to you,
that is exactly the way it is, no smearing involved.

and btw, that is quite honorable and admirable that you and your team worked
for so long and so hard to help HP, too bad they havent showed the same type
of attitude towards you as well. high five to You on that. I find it
dispicable that HP would even suggest any legal actions upon you in this
matter. and as a result, I find myself looking at other Manufacturers
printers, any HP product will be the last on my lists to be considered.

good job HP, another happy customer. please note the sarcasm in that
statement.

Don

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Scimone [mailto:sert () snosoft com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 12:57 PM
> > To: full-disclosure () lists netsys com; Florin Andrei;
> > bugtraq () securityfocus com
> > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] it's all about timing
> >
> >
> > I agree with this.  However, in the Snosoft case the facts has
> > been smeared by
> > all the different stories going around.  I will not get into it
> > in detail but
> > we have been working with HP on this for 4+ months, bending over
> > backwards
> > for them to keep everything out of the eyes of the public.  All the time
> > putting up with threats of suit for nonsense issues.  The bottom
> > line is that
> > we went above and beyond what is reasonable for a research group to do
> > because we knew how serious the issue is, and after managing to
> > do this for
> > so long something got leaked which was inevitable with the
> > amount of people
> > working on the problem.  I believe if instead of it being a leak
> > we released
> > an advisory on the issue (we couldn't do this b/c of HP's legal
> > department
> > strong-arming us) after 2 months nevermind 4 months it would
> > have been more
> > than reasonable.  Look for an official statement tonight on our website
> > www.snosoft.com with the exact details but I'm sick of going
> > through the day
> > listening to the facts get smeared b/c of false reports.
> >
> > -sert
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday 31 July 2002 09:26 pm, Florin Andrei wrote:
> > > (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.