Re: Where are you guys standing re: the (full) disclosure

[amani <amani () fastmail us>]

Whether you like Microsoft or not isn't the point, and it's a whole
other topic.

In the past, full disclosure benefited everybody and it was a way to
gain notoriety among the community.

It's taken years to get people to accept "responsible disclosure" (ie,
giving software companies time to fix the vulnerability before full
disclosure).

We know that the NSA, FBI, and CIA have asked software companies, like
Microsoft and Cisco, not to patch vulnerabilities. These agencies used
these vulnerabilities to their advantage to spy on others. OK, that's
what they do.

Ethics? Define it.


On Fri, Dec 13, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 03:27:21PM +0000, imipak wrote:
> > On 13/12/13 15:06, Mikhail A. Utin wrote:
> > > Answers:
> > [...]
> > > 2. If you keep it for yourself - no problems. If you disclose on Internet
> > before informing M$, there is certain risk, but first of all it is not
> > ethical.
> >
> > Sure it is. It's just a different set of ethics than the ones you (or I)
> > would adhere to. "Ethics" isn't a universal absolute.
> >
> >
> > \a
>
>
> Are M$ ethical? 
>
> Their ethics boils down to making money,
> which is not different from a commercial
> botnet IMO.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/