Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Fwd: IE7 is a Source of Problem - Secunia IE7 Release Incident of October 2006
From: "LIUDIEYU dot COM" <liudieyu.com () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:13:07 +0800
fulldisclosure and ntbugtraq added, also available on my blog. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: LIUDIEYU dot COM <liudieyu.com () gmail com> Date: Oct 29, 2006 1:50 AM Subject: Re: IE7 is a Source of Problem - Secunia IE7 Release Incident of October 2006 To: Reversemode <advisories () reversemode com> Cc: Securityfocus <bugtraq () securityfocus com> If you have read "IE7 is a Source of Problem - Secunia IE7 Release Incident of October 2006" then please ignore this message for in it I offer no further view on this topic. A gentleman has chanllenged me with several questions on bugtraq and as an old-fashioned Chinese man it is impolite to avoid answering in such circumstances. Sorry for the delay caused not thru my fault, Mister Reversemode, here is my reply to your question marks: Q1 I assume that bugtraq is an objective security list. Subjective opinions? I do not think so. A1 I just heard you said "From a security researcher standpoint", "So let's imagine", "What would happen if you have to" blah blah, etc. "objective"? You are not confused with these two jectives are you? Q2 From a security researcher standpoint, the important thing is where the flaw is located, since your products/company could be exposing the flawed component through a bunch of attack vectors. So let's imagine that Microsoft had released an advisory just saying that the culprit is Internet Explorer ONLY. It wouldn't be very funny if you are using that mhtml component within your own product, since you would think: "Ok, no problem, IE is vulnerable ONLY". What would happen if you have to write down a vulnerability report on it? A2 "What would happen" ... honestly I don't know. Per your request as "bugtraq is an objective security list", can you name one example product other than IE that demonstrates "using that mhtml component" "wouldn't be very funny"? Q3: Attack vectors != vulnerabilities For example, is a vuln within the Quicktime Browser plugin the same that a flaw within the own IE? I don't think so. I am not defending Microsoft. I am defending that every vendor/researcher should release proper advisories, i.e (...) A3: In this specific "For example" case you don't have to defend Microsoft. It's Apple who need your defense, if hopefully it involves something not Apple branded. Mister Reversemode, you have further concerns to express publicly over bugtraq regarding this topic brought up by me, you are welcome to ask me and I'll reply accordingly, but you do understand I might not be available for a 3rd reply to your message. Liu Die Yu 28 OCT 06 On 10/28/06, Reversemode <advisories () reversemode com> wrote:
"Let me sum up: in this case IE is vulnerable, only IE is vulnerable, and Microsoft say "These reports are technically inaccurate: the issue concerned in these reports is not in Internet Explorer 7 (or any other version) at all".I assume that bugtraq is an objective security list. Subjective opinions? I do not think so. If you post saying "X" product is vulnerable, you should be able to demonstrate it. From a security researcher standpoint, the important thing is where the flaw is located, since your products/company could be exposing the flawed component through a bunch of attack vectors. So let's imagine that Microsoft had released an advisory just saying that the culprit is Internet Explorer ONLY. It wouldn't be very funny if you are using that mhtml component within your own product, since you would think: "Ok, no problem, IE is vulnerable ONLY". What would happen if you have to write down a vulnerability report on it?. Btw, you have censored an important part of the original "advisory" for your own profit : ----"Let me sum up: in this case IE is vulnerable, only IE is vulnerable, and Microsoft say "These reports are technically inaccurate: the issue concerned in these reports is not in Internet Explorer 7 (or any other version) at all" -> "Rather, it is in a different Windows component,specifically a component in Outlook Express. While these reports use Internet Explorer as a vector the vulnerability itself is in Outlook Express" " ---- Attack vectors != vulnerabilities For example, is a vuln within the Quicktime Browser plugin the same that a flaw within the own IE? I don't think so. I am not defending Microsoft. I am defending that every vendor/researcher should release proper advisories, i.e When Microsoft hid information in a security bulletin few months ago,( NtClose DeadLock issue/MS06-30), I posted to the list objective technical details demonstrating it. If you have technical details demonstrating that a shared component is not the culprit, but IE does, I'll shut up myself. Frankly, I only trust in technical reasoning, I don't mind who is the vendor. Regards, Rubén.
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Current thread:
- IE7 is a Source of Problem - Secunia IE7 Release Incident of October 2006 LIUDIEYU dot COM (Oct 26)
- Re: IE7 is a Source of Problem - Secunia IE7 Release Incident of October 2006 HASEGAWA Yosuke (Oct 27)
- Re: IE7 is a Source of Problem - Secunia IE7 Release Incident of October 2006 Jerome Athias (Oct 27)
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Fwd: IE7 is a Source of Problem - Secunia IE7 Release Incident of October 2006 LIUDIEYU dot COM (Oct 29)
- Message not available