Full Disclosure mailing list archives

RE: Re: Re: <to various comments>EEYE: MicrosoftASN.1 ...


From: "Drew Copley" <dcopley () eeye com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:01:28 -0800

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Kenton Smith [mailto:ksmith () chartwelltechnology com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:55 AM
To: Drew Copley
Cc: Paul Tinsley; full-disclosure () lists netsys com
Subject: RE: [Full-disclosure] Re: Re: <to various 
comments>EEYE: MicrosoftASN.1 ...

Mr. Copley,

I'm not an Eeye customer nor do I necessarily share the views 
of the original poster. However, if I were you I'd quit while 
you're ahead.
This sort of tone from a representative of the company 
doesn't reflect well on the company in general. Whether the 
poster is knowledgeable or not, a professional or not, a 
troller or not, insults from a company representative, in my 
view, will bias my opinion towards that company as a whole. 
If I purchase an Eeye product and ask what the representative 
thinks is a stupid question, will I get a constructive answer 
to help me or will I get laughed off the phone? I don't know, 
and now I wonder.

I am not a sales representative, however I am extremely patient and
always have been with users of our software (or my own, or anyone
else's). For years I have taken a lot of time to help people through
technical problems. And, I surely do not even mind taking a lot of
abuse. I believe in taking abuse as a matter of personal policy.

This individual did not ask a stupid question. 

I think that is apparent to everyone.

Further, again, my opinions are my own. I will tell you the truth.
Perhaps to a fault, in this case. Though, I think maybe it will help him
on his way down the years.

Regardless, I had already set my mind not to deal with anymore trolls.




There are enough people who respond with insults on this 
list, it'd be nice if we didn't see it from corporate 
representatives as well.

Kenton

On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 12:17, Drew Copley wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com
[mailto:full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com] On Behalf Of Paul 
Tinsley
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 10:57 PM
To: Drew Copley
Cc: full-disclosure () lists netsys com
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Re: Re: <to various
comments>EEYE: Microsoft ASN.1 ...

Drew Copley wrote:

Without replying to each troll, individually, I thought 
maybe some 
people would like to see some answers to some notes.


Most of these are from me, so I will personally respond to those 
that apply.  And believe it or not, this is not a troll, I really 
wanted to see people's viewpoints on this subject.


Somehow, I find this hard to believe.



These are my own comments, I speak for myself.

Question: "Why release all of the details"


This statement is not an accurate paraphrase, I didn't say
why release them all.  I said why release them all on day 0
of the patch release.

Answer: Polls show this is what administrators what. This is
one reason
we do this. Another reason we do this is simple, we use 
the details
ourselves. We use the details to create signatures for our
vulnerability assessment tool and firewall. Security 
administrators
then download these signatures and use them to check for
patches or to
protect systems which can not yet be patched.


Administrators don't need this crap to fix their boxes, they
simply need the exploit vectors, the possible mitigation
steps, and the potential severity of the vulnerability.

<snip>

I have gone over this a few times with some others. I 
believe I already
said it here. You seem to be unable to either hear it or believe it.

In no particuliar order:

One, the polls show that more want it then not.

Two, we sell products which secure their boxes. We have a lot of
customers. Our competitors do the same thing. Altogether, we are the
industry. We have to know what the security hole was, so do our
competitors. Then, we can protect against this. So can they.

Three, we don't give out exploit code. You can't make an 
exploit from
our advisory. I don't know you, I don't know who you are. 
But, frankly,
not that many people can even write exploit code. With 
these bugs, you
would have to be able to not only write the exploit code but also
understand the cryptographic references and their 
implementations in the
Window's OS. It isn't all that hard. But, it turns out, 
that the guys
who can write exploit code also can reverse engineer 
patches... They can
also understand our advisories, but they can also find 
their own bugs.

Okay?

Real world.

But, I don't think you understand that. Why should I go on. It isn't
rocket science. But, you are saying, "I know, I know". And, 
you do not
know. That is when people can neither learn nor understand.

Now, as a brief disclaimer... Security, being able to do 
these things is
not something that requires someone to have a tumor in 
their brain that
makes their IQ magically go up a thousand points. It requires only
desire. This means a predisposition. You have to be willing 
and wanting
to sit there and work through these things.

So, you really have no excuse not to understand these things.

You are a Monday morning quarterback.





_______________________________________________
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


Current thread: