Re: [Full-Disclosure] re: openssh exploit code?
From: S . f . Stover (attica_at_stackheap.org)
To: John Sage <email@example.com> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 06:23:22 -0400
: /* snip */
: > BTW, I thought "whitehat" implied
: > non-disclosure, which isn't really the direction I'm coming from.
: /* snip */
: Nothing of the sort.
: In fact, whitehats and blackhats often perform exactly the same tasks
: at the keyboard while doing research, and use the same tools.
: It's just the ulitmate purpose to which the research is put that
I guess I was thinking along the lines of attitude towards full disclosure. I
think of whitehats as not wanting to expose source or even the vulnerability
before the vendor fixes it. Greyhats then will give the vendor the
opportunity to fix, but will release the vulnerability regardless, while the
blackhat feels that the everyone should know when it's discovered.
However, this does run counter to what I'll call "real" blackhats or people
who use their exploits for gain or illegal purposes. Obviously releasing source
so patches can be developed, IDS vendors can write signatures, etc. does not
futher that end.
-- aka Dolph Longhorn firstname.lastname@example.org GPG Key ID: 0xF8F859D0 http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0xF8F859D0&op=index "There is no such thing as right and wrong, there's just popular opinion." -Jeffrey Goines
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored