Re: David Litchfield talks about the SQL Worm in the Washington Post

[Georgi Guninski <guninski () guninski com>]

So what?
This sql hype highly resembles the code red stuff. Then people accused eeye for 
releasing the bug, though they didn't provide exploit code. IIRC Litchfield also 
didn't provide exploit code. Should advisories be "There is a bug. Go patch. End."?

Is there any real evidence that releasing PoC helps high scale incidents like 
this one? - Don't think so.

Sure writing worms and virii is bad, but this sql worm has a positive side 
effect imho.
The real damage done was very limitied (high traffic in m$ network according to 
the reg, some atms stopped working for strange reason, korean spammers off the 
net) compared to the potential long lasting damage from stealing info from these 
DBs.
There wasn't such fuzz about the apache worm, though imho apache has much more 
market share than m$ sql.

Georgi Guninski
http://www.guninski.com


Richard M. Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The following quote from David Litchfield appeared in a front-page
> article in today's Washington Post:
>
>    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57550-2003Jan28.html
>
>    "You have this ideal vision of doing something 
>    for the greater good," said David Litchfield, 
>    managing director of Next Generation Security 
>    Software Ltd. of London, who acknowledged that 
>    a small bit of his code might have been used in 
>    the attack. "I will probably no longer publish such code." 
>
> Perhaps David can put together a longer message for Bugtraq and
> Full-Disclosure on his changing views of publishing proof-of-concept
> code for security vulnerabilities.
>
> Richard M. Smith
> http://www.ComputerBytesMan.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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