[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 03:48:19 +0300
From: Alexander Cherepanov <cherepan@...me.ru>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: list policy (Re: Truly scary SSL 3.0 vuln to be
revealed soon:)
On 2014-10-29 02:47, Kurt Seifried wrote:
> On 28/10/14 07:47 AM, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
>> On 2014-10-15 12:30, Solar Designer wrote:
>>> - Please don't send fully working exploits (but testcases that exercise
>>> the flaw are welcome)
>>>
>>> FWIW, I've always been tempted to remove the latter guideline,
>>
>> Then perhaps just remove it? It always seemed to me a strange
>> restriction. Other guidelines are either technical in nature or they are
>> intended to reduce the amount of noise. This restriction seems to be
>> neither.
>>
>> Of you can replace it with something like this:
>> - Please only send fully working exploits which themselves are open-source.
>>
> Will someone/people vet the exploits to make sure they are not trojan
> horses/self harming (e.g. the rm -rf * embedded in it somewhere?).
> Strikes me as a heck of a watering hole attack potentially (and yes,
> list members should know better, but ... yeah).
This is an interesting question but how "fully working exploits" differ
from "testcases that exercise the flaw" in this regard?
--
Alexander Cherepanov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
