This is a discussion on Re: [Proftpd-user] [Proftpd-devel] A new Secunia advisory - proftpd ; --===============0627730693== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_125233906==.ALT" --=====================_125233906==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 03:32 PM 11/28/2006, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > http://secunia.com/advisories/23141/ > >But for contents, it would be nice knowing if full disclosure is at >least done after contacting developers :-/ I'm ...
--===============0627730693==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=====================_125233906==.ALT"
--=====================_125233906==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 03:32 PM 11/28/2006, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>http://secunia.com/advisories/23141/
>
>But for contents, it would be nice knowing if full disclosure is at
>least done after contacting developers :-/
I'm inclined to wonder myself at the timeliness of the notifications
by this "reliable researcher".
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archiv...6-q4/0230.html
"If you think that I never report my bugs to vendors - I do that, sometimes."
(I wonder who asked the question? credibility problems from elsewhere?)
Follow the link in the Secunia report at
http://secunia.com/advisories/23141/ to
http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/f...er/050935.html
IV. CREDIT
Discovered by Evgeny Legerov.
The vulnerability is a part of VulnDisco Pack Professional since
Jan, 2006.
Uh, part of his commercial for-sale package since January? And he's
notifying developers now?
http://elegerov.blogspot.com/
But here he says he notified developers of now patched bug on Nov
17. Then says first version of his package was Nov 07. Then
mentions finding the latest bug months ago, mentioning it on Oct 05.
And on Nov 12 he apparently directly forbids anyone from notifying
the developers, in responding to Matus, saying that purchasers must
respect the license
http://www.gleg.net/vulndisco_profes..._license.shtml
which says in part:
"Purchaser is not allowed to disclose the Pack in whole or
partly, to disclose any information concerning the Pack or
any information derived from the Pack."
which says to me that even if the ProFTPD development team had
purchased the VulnDisco Pack Professional at USD2299 plus USD559 per
quarter they couldn't risk, uh, disclosing fixes derived from the,
uh, paid-for package?
So he _might_ disclose, but others _can't_ disclose, so unless he
wants to brag, nobody can know? This cat-n-mouse smells fishy.
--=====================_125233906==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
At 03:32 PM 11/28/2006, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
http://secunia.com/advisories/23141/
But for contents, it would be nice knowing if full disclosure is at
least done after contacting developers :-/