Re: Weak response from RH

[Benjamin Krueger <benjamin () seattlefenix net>]

* Gregory A. Gilliss (ggilliss () netpublishing com) [031007 00:10]:
> Remember last Wednesday's post labeled "Red Hat Certification for..."?
> Red Hat set up their training site so that the training price is displayed
> in the URL?
>
> Well, Red Hat responded! Here's how: they added a line to the Web page. 
> They didn't change the URL or the price mechanism (you still can amuse
> yourself by making it look like Red Hat will pay you a gazillion dollars
> to take their course). Here's what it say now:
>
> > Note: Please do not alter the price, date, or location indicated for your
> > selected enrollment or it will not be processed. Thank you!
>
> In other words, we know that you can screw with our poorly coded Web site,
> and we can't be bothered to fix it, so if you try and fool us we will just
> ignore you.
>
> Security by Condescension! Go Red Hat - maybe M$ can try this next: please
> do not overflow the buffers in our application or we will not honor your
> EULA <G>
>
> FreeBSD rules!
>
> G

Remember that part of your CISSP training where they told you that risk
evaluation is a critical aspect of infosec? I assume you did actually take
that class because you've proudly mounted the title in your signature.

Does this issue pose a big enough risk to divert web development resources
from another project? They've mitigated the problem, making the associated
parties aware of the issue and what to watch for. This seems like a reasonable
approach. What justifies Redhat dedicating more resources to a problem that
they obviously believe has been sufficiently mitigated?

-- 
Benjamin Krueger

"Nothing disables a giant space monkey quicker than an atomic wedgie"

ps. Condescension. How does a request for users to refrain from fooling with
    the web form constitute condescension?

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