Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Clarification on Xitami DoS

["Steven M. Christey" <coley () linus mitre org>]

Muhammad Faisal Rauf Danka <mfrd () attitudex com> asked:

> What is vendor's status regarding this issue?

to which "Matthew Murphy" <mattmurphy () kc rr com> replied:

> I've e-mailed the vendor, but have received no response *at all*.


This thread is a good demonstration for why vendors need to be
responsive to incoming vulnerability reports.  Without a response from
the vendor, we've now got a number of posts in which people have spent
extra time to (a) try to figure out the underlying cause of the issue,
(b) try to duplicate the issue, and (c) try to come up with a
resolution in the absence of vendor guidance and/or a patch.  Vendors
often know the answers to these questions.

Greater overall responsiveness by vendors is covered heavily by
section 3 of the Responsible Vulnerability Disclosure Process draft
[1].  Better responsiveness from vendors (and better coordination
overall) can reduce much of this guesswork, so that sysadmins and
security researchers can spend their time on more pressing issues.

- Steve


[1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-christey-wysopal-vuln-disclosure-00.txt