Re: [Secure Network Operations, Inc.] Full Disclosure != Exploit Release

["Rick Updegrove \(security\)" <security () updegrove net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard M. Smith" <rms () computerbytesman com>
To: <full-disclosure () lists netsys com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 1:24 PM
Subject: RE: [Full-disclosure] [Secure Network Operations, Inc.] Full
Disclosure != Exploit Release

> > > > One problem with anyone making private exploits is that
>  >>> they always seem to get leaked, no matter who it is.
>
> I've written at least a dozen proof-of-concept examples for security
> holes.  I've given these examples to vendors and shared them with
> friends and other security researchers.  I'm not aware of any of them
> being made public.  In addition, I serious doubt that any of the
> examples are of much use to anyone except to the vendor who messed up in
> the first place.

Says you.

The problem with that statement of course is that you have no way to prove
it.  So, why even make such a claim?

My opinion:

Making an exclusive club for who gets exploit code is very much
like writing the bible in Latin when only priests read and write Latin.
Sooner or later the people will figure out that the priests are just a bunch
of lazy cowards who don't want to get a real job.  In the end you will not
stop exploit code from getting into the wrong hands period.  Face it, there
is nothing you can do to prevent this from happening.

P.S.  Why do you even subscribe to the full-disclosure list when you are
obviously against full-disclosure?

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