Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: GOOD for Enterprise (GMA) below 2.0.2 vulnerable to MITM
From: Jeffrey Walton <noloader () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 04:18:59 -0500
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Georgi Guninski <guninski () guninski com> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 05:47:28PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote: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 Until there are fully automated updates and refusal of service for outdated applications I see the need for disclosure.Mobile is a step backwards in software security (back to about the mid-1990s) due to patching.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"liability laws might kill a lot of OSS warez as a side effect.
Perhaps. I believe it will improve those that remain (survival of the fittest?). Folks like Google and Red Hat might have to take a proactive approach to limit their liability. It might hurt folks like Dan Rosenberg, who make their careers out of finding Comp Sci 101 bugs in the kernel. (Nothing against Dan - he does a great job).
btw, m$ lusers agree to "CLASS ACTION WAIVER": http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-live/microsoft-services-agreement ============== IF YOU LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES, SECTION 10 CONTAINS A BINDING ARBITRATION CLAUSE AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER. IT AFFECTS YOUR RIGHTS ABOUT HOW TO RESOLVE ANY DISPUTE WITH MICROSOFT. PLEASE READ IT. 10.4. Class action waiver. Any proceedings to resolve or litigate any dispute in any forum will be conducted solely on an individual basis. Neither you nor Microsoft will seek to have any dispute heard as a class action or in any other proceeding in which either party acts or proposes to act in a representative capacity. No arbitration or proceeding will be combined with another without the prior written consent of all parties to all affected arbitrations or proceedings. ===============
Its not just Microsoft. The courts (in the US) are starting to limit those obscene Terms of Service. http://www.topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/2633-zapposcom-loses-arbitration-bid-in-data-breach-class-action-lawsuit. Its another legal absurdity to me: you are given a protection, then corporate america tries to get you to wave it. I guess that's why my undergrad and grad degrees are computer science and not law. 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)