RE: [spam] RE: [Full-Disclosure] Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for good security

From: Exibar (
Date: 11/01/03

  • Next message: Cedric Blancher: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for good security"
    To: "Beaty, Bryan" <>, <>
    Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:46:32 -0500

    I only listed those as examples... there are many more.

     Poor patch management is an issue yes, absolutely. But why on earth would,
    lets say SQL, first get installed with a blank SA password by default? Ok,
    it's changed now, but why was it ever? Why on earth is a blank password
    even allowed for Administrator? Why are there still, what 30??, unpatched
    IE vulnerabilities?

      Yes, at least Microsoft is finally starting to do something now. But I
    feel ONLY because Linux is starting to make a dent in their bottom line.
    Before you say it, NO I am not a Linux junkie, I dont' even run it, and
    Linux is just as insecure as Windows, but Linux is perceved to be least more secure than Windows.

      Loveletter could not have been prevented by a patch. Why is a 3rd party
    application allowed access to the global address list in the first place?
       Funlove could not have been prevented by a patch, perhaps a firewall
    could have segmented infectous areas, but not prevented it.
      Why are Active X components allowed to run as the user and not in a
    sandbox such as Java?

      I don't pretend to have all the answers, but Microsoft is coming along
    only recently to do just too little, too late IMHO.


    -----Original Message-----
    []On Behalf Of Beaty, Bryan
    Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 6:50 PM
    Subject: [spam] RE: [Full-Disclosure] Gates: 'You don't need perfect
    code' for good security

    Correct me if I am wrong but...

    I believe every worm listed below could have been prevented had everyone
    patched their systems.

    I would like the security community to take more responsibility for
    their own (in)actions. If you were hit by Blaster then you failed to
    enforce a good patch management policy. Who's fault is that? Patch
    management is boring and so we often ignore it. Hackers and worms simply
    take advantage of our laziness. I guess blaster could be a form of
    social engineering. "I know admins don't patch so I can write a worm and
    kill the world."

    There is no such thing as perfect code. If you want a completely secure
    system you can buy them but they are unbelievably expensive. If you have
    a business justification for something that secure then buy it.
    Otherwise you have to live with what you can get from Linux, UNIX, or
    even Microsoft.

    Microsoft has at least come out with some very good patch management
    systems lately (SUS) and they are free. Red Hat charges me a yearly fee
    for their RHN.

    I believe the #1 security threat today is poor patch management. Is that
    Microsoft's fault?

    --> I am off of my soap box now.

    Bryan Beaty

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Exibar []
    Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 1:40 PM
    To: Jeremiah Cornelius;
    Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for
    good security

    What an idiot....

       Take the loveletter worm, when it was first released even if you had
    a 100% up to date AntiVirus software program, you would still get hit
    the first 8 hours.... slammer, blaster, etc all the same thing. The
    advantage of holes in the OPERATING SYSTEM!!!!

       Yes we have ways of updating our VirusSoftware that works very very
    well, McAfee has E-Policy Orchstrator, which I swear by.

      I'm not going to go on, but if Windows was as secure as Bill Gates and
    company says it is, why was blaster, slammer, codered etc even an issue?


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jeremiah Cornelius" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 1:32 PM
    Subject: [Full-Disclosure] Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for good

    > Hash: SHA1
    > FLAME ON!
    > "But there are two other techniques: one is called firewalling and the
    > is called keeping the software up to date. None of these problems
    > (viruses and worms) happened to people who did either one of those
    > things. If you
    > your firewall set up the right way - and when I say firewall I include

    > scanning e-mail and scanning file transfer -- you wouldn't have had a
    > problem. But did we have the tools that made that easy and automatic
    > and
    > you could really audit that you had done it? No. Microsoft in
    > particular
    > the industry in general didn't have it."
    > "The second is just the updating thing. Anybody who kept their
    > software up
    > date didn't run into any of those problems, because the fixes preceded

    > the exploit. Now the times between when the vulnerability was
    > published and
    > somebody has exploited it, those have been going down, but in every
    > case
    > this stage we've had the fix out before the exploit. So next is making

    > it easy to do the updating, not for general features but just for the
    > very
    > critical security things, and then reducing the size of those patches,

    > and reducing the frequency of the patches, which gets you back to the
    > code quality issues. We have to bring these things to bear, and the
    > very
    > things that we can do in the short term have to do with the firewalls
    > and
    > updating infrastructure. "
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    > Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
    > iD8DBQE/oqq3Ji2cv3XsiSARAlkdAJ0aGkBViYkoE193iZycTmQZohzwbQCg1KDA
    > SjPLY1EEzamQCtIGKwJT1Vk=
    > =mIsY
    > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    > _______________________________________________
    > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    > Charter:

    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.

    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.

    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.

  • Next message: Cedric Blancher: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for good security"