Re: Re: Full Disclosure != Exploit Release

[Georgi Guninski <guninski () guninski com>]

Paul Schmehl wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 06:13, David Howe wrote:
>
>
> > That is of course your choice. Vendors in particular were prone to deny
> > a vunerability existed unless exploit code were published to prove it.
>
>
> I've read this mantra over and over again in these discussions, and a
> question occurs to me.  Can anyone provide a *documented* case where a
> vendor refused to produce a patch **having been properly notified of a
> vulnerability** until exploit code was released?
>
> Definitions:
>
> "properly notified" means that the vendor received written notification
> at a functional address (either email or snail mail) *and* responded
> (bot or human) so that the sender knows the message was received.
>
> "documented" means that there is proof both of proper notification *and*
> that a patch was not released in a timely manner
>
> "timely" means within two weeks of the notification

IIRC micro$oft never fixed any of my reports in "timely" manner according to 
your definitions. Somewhere on www.guninski.com you may see they didn't fix a 
reproducible exploit in a lot of months.
Another recent example is the "shatter" exploit, which was first denied to be a bug.

Georgi Guninski
http://www.guninski.com


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