Press Release Response

From: Simple Nomad (thegnome@NMRC.ORG)
Date: 08/13/01 

Message-ID:  <***.666.6.66.0108131102370.24579-100000@www.nmrc.org>
Date:         Mon, 13 Aug 2001 12:14:06 -0400
From: Simple Nomad <thegnome@NMRC.ORG>
Subject:      Press Release Response
To: NTBUGTRAQ@LISTSERV.NTBUGTRAQ.COM

> A Call for Responsible Disclosure Guidelines for the Information Security
> Industry
>
>
> Updated: Mon, Aug 13 8:33 AM EDT
>
>
> HERNDON, Va. (BUSINESS WIRE) - By the time Code Red launched on July 13, a
> plethora of information was available on the worm, including the type of
> system it could infect, how quickly the worm would propagate and even the
> way in which it exploited systems. The public was extremely well informed
> and could find any detail it wanted to know about what could have possibly
> become the Internet's most devastating malicious code threat to date. But
> was this a good thing?

I say yes. More machines are now patched. People are more aware of the
importance of patching their systems quickly than ever before.

> Russ Cooper, surgeon general of TruSecure Corp. (www.trusecure.com),
> contends that full disclosure can actually help malicious code propagate
> and evolve into new strains. By making vulnerability and exploit
> information public before a software vendor can issue a patch and help
> customers secure their systems, organizations that practice full
> disclosure give hackers all the ammunition they need to launch a worm or
> virus.

The first paragraph mentioning Code Red, along with the second paragraph,
implies that eEye did *not* disclose to the vendor Microsoft before
releasing technical details, which is false. It does not mention that the
worm was an older worm with a more advanced buffer overflow technique than
what eEye came up with, and that this new buffer overflow was simply
grafted into an older worm. Instead by using carefully chosen words and
sentences, with a mix of facts and omissions, you have demonized eEye. Was
that intentional or coincidental?

> Mr. Cooper believes that the industry must develop responsible disclosure
> guidelines, established with an independent governing body that could
> develop and enforce such policies. The Responsible Disclosure Forum would
> advise vendors on the seriousness of threats to their software before
> making the information public. This would allow vendors and customers
> ample time to patch the vulnerability and minimize the effectiveness of
> any exploits launched. The Forum could also serve as an information
> resource to the media, ensuring an objective opinion on the seriousness of
> a threat, helping to guarantee responsible and useful reporting.

eEye *did* act responsibly. They worked with Microsoft and in a
coordinated effort, released their information at the same time. The
idea of a Responsible Disclosure Forum does not address that hackers could
(and do) disassemble all of the components of patches to determine what
was fixed, especially if it was a security patch. It does not address that
Microsoft has repeatedly added new features that are on by default without
telling anyone, which is evident when half of the workarounds for IIS
problems involve turning off a default setting that less than 1% of their
user base might ever use, let alone even heard of.

Let us not forget the entire RDS episode, when you were using this "inside
information" to get clients, only to have a clever hacker develop an
exploit based upon the limited technical knowledge you divulged publicly.

In all seriousness, do you *really* believe what you are saying when it
comes to full disclosure, or is this a ploy to get press? From where I
stand, you and the rest of the security industry (including myself)
benefit from this either way. Considering that most of the security
community seems to respect and appreciate the full disclosure movement,
can't you just accept that the genie has been let out of the bottle? We
should simply move on to more pressing issues, such as vendors taking
responsibility for writing decent code in the first place, and mechanisms
to automate and simplify patch management. But you will never ever get rid
of full disclosure at this point. Period.

BTW, do you know who has your complete and full support? People who break
into computer systems that hate the script kiddies who abuse their
privately-held exploits. They have an argument that full disclosure hurts
the underground community. Check out http://anti.security.is/ for an idea
of what I am talking about. My guess is they love you.

- Simple Nomad - "No rest for the Wicca'd" -
- thegnome@nmrc.org - -
- thegnome@razor.bindview.com - www.nmrc.org razor.bindview.com -

============================================================================
Delivery co-sponsored by Trend Micro, Inc.
============================================================================
TREND MICRO SCANMAIL FOR EXCHANGE 2000 -- SECOND to NONE

If you are worried about email viruses, you need Trend Micro ScanMail for
Exchange. ScanMail is the first antivirus solution that seamlessly
integrates with the Microsoft Exchange 2000 virus-scanning API 2.0. ScanMail
ensures 100% inbound and outbound email virus scanning and provides remote
software management. Download a FREE 30-day trial copy of ScanMail and find
out why it is the best:
http://www.antivirus.com/banners/tracking.asp?si=8&BI;=240&UL;=/smex2000
============================================================================