Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: GOOD for Enterprise (GMA) below 2.0.2 vulnerable to MITM
From: Jeffrey Walton <noloader () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:47:28 -0500
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Thierry Zoller <Thierry () zoller lu> wrote:
RANT ---- The world of mobile applications appear to have become one where vulnerability disclosure and awareness are not necessary. Until there are fully automated updates and refusal of service for outdated applications I see the need for disclosure.
Mobile is a step backwards in software security (back to about the mid-1990s) due to patching. Or more correctly, lack thereof. I've been bitching about it for years. I'm convinced the only way to fix it is through legislation and software liability laws. Waiting for companies to "do the right thing" means will be waiting a very long time (given their track record) because "do nothing" is cost effective and maximizes profits,
GMA failed to validate server authenticity when connecting through HTTPS
The Security Architect for Good should be fired if that sort of thing is acceptable. Jeff _______________________________________________ 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:
- GOOD for Enterprise (GMA) below 2.0.2 vulnerable to MITM Thierry Zoller (Nov 13)
- Re: GOOD for Enterprise (GMA) below 2.0.2 vulnerable to MITM Jeffrey Walton (Nov 13)
- Re: GOOD for Enterprise (GMA) below 2.0.2 vulnerable to MITM Georgi Guninski (Nov 14)
- Re: GOOD for Enterprise (GMA) below 2.0.2 vulnerable to MITM Jeffrey Walton (Nov 14)
- Re: GOOD for Enterprise (GMA) below 2.0.2 vulnerable to MITM Georgi Guninski (Nov 14)
- Re: GOOD for Enterprise (GMA) below 2.0.2 vulnerable to MITM Jeffrey Walton (Nov 13)