Hacker Leaks Unreleased CERT Reports 379
Call Me Black Cloud writes "A hacker calling himself "Hack4Life" swiped 3 unpublished vulnerability reports from a company working with CERT and posted them to the Full Disclosure mailing list. A couple of days later, he did it again (while promising weekly leaks). Wired also has a story, including a link to one of the postings."
Maybe it's an inside job. (Score:5, Insightful)
or maybe someone joined CERT just so he/she could play uberhacker.
Re:You've spelled Cracker wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Simply put, if the masses see "hackers" as evil criminals then that's what "hackers" are. Language is determined by the masses, not by a small minority who get to determine what's PC or right.
Re:Interesting to note... (Score:2, Insightful)
Is CERT doing what they are supposed 2 do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Inherent problems with CERT (Score:5, Insightful)
CERT should instead, stick with helping behind the scenes coordination between security agencies like eEye and software companies; and should stop publishing unfixed problems to a CERT's underground mailing list.
Re:You've spelled Cracker wrong. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Double-edged sword? (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep in mind that pretty much by definition, "script kiddies" won't be doing much with a new vulnerability, as their sole skill lies in being able to run someone else's code. Most new vulnerabilities either aren't exploited for months (vendor patch or no), or if they are, the exploit certainly isn't public knowledge. Therefore, there's little chance of a script kiddie rampage from some leaked vulnerability.
Ok, so I'm nitpicking
I guess the only real threat with this sort of thing is that someone who actually *might* be able to do something with this, now has a known target to go after.
Re:You've spelled Cracker wrong. (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it's ironic how the "hacker" community used go out of their way to emphasize the distinction between hacker (positive) and cracker (negative), but as of late seem to not bother anymore. Certain Slashdot "reporters" don't seem to bother even trying to make the distinction anymore.
Looks like the popular media won this one.
One was supposed to be held back till june??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Malice95
Re:Interesting to note... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe it's an inside job. (Score:5, Insightful)
From the second link: (Score:3, Insightful)
You tell me. Is this a good thing, or a bad thing?
Re:Double-edged sword? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have the sources to the operating system that I prefer to run and all the apps that run on it. I am a unix system engineer of quite a few years experience now. I know how to program C with about 13 years of experience there. I believe very firmly that I am in the category of "those who have the capacity to fix them". I am not, however, in the inner circle of those who get early access to CERT security information.
Re:Interesting to note... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Double-edged sword? (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally, let's use a non-digital example. If (e.g.) Consumer Reports found a flaw in a popular child car seat that could cause severe injury to a child, which path would you prefer they take:
For many people charged with security, this is an easy question: they want all possible information on vulnerabilities the second that someone discovers them. They can shut off services, craft firewall rules, compile in patches, write their own damn patches. The worst-case scenario for them is that their systems are afflicted with a vulnerability that anyone else but them knows about.
Besides, here's the elephant in the living room that no one wants to address: if one person can somehow acquire this information and post it to a public list, another person can use the information for ill gain. One of these vulnerabilities wasn't due to be announced 'til June?? That's a long fucking time for (e.g.) your bank's online transaction processor to be vulnerable.
Disclose early; disclose often. Anything else multiplies the risk for the people who can least afford it.
CERT is incredibly stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
That vulnerability is a simple buffer overflow. RedHat had a patch out for it in less than a day. This whole 'wait for the vendor to fix it' thing just results in lazy vendors.
And, as the army breakin shows, the 'bad' guys often have the information whether or not the 'good' guys even know it. There are many script kiddies out there, but there are a few really intelligent people who can do their own research, and won't bother telling CERT before they go and exploit the vulnerability.
Obvious Result (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not to deride Theo & crew's accomplishments - they've done amazing work, look at how few bugs are found in OpenSSH relative to how incredibly widespread it is - but it is practically impossible to write perfectly secure code that operates at anything like a reasonable speed for the x86.
Re:You've spelled Cracker wrong. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Listen...can you hear that? (Score:3, Insightful)
"BSD-derived libraries with XDR/RPC routines (libc)"
Don't think your safe just because your OS make you feel that way. Patch now! Patch Often!
I don't follow true BSDs so I don't know if there is actually a fix for OpenBSD or FreeBSD. My linux boxes are patched. I assume my OS X boxes are vulnerable as well. Don't assume because your OS is great for you, that it's secure and you don't need to be concerned about patches. Read up on what was released so you know what the average cracker and script kiddie knows. Beat them to the punch and be happy knowing you're smart enough to know better. Only then will you be secure, Grasshopper.
Re:You've spelled Cracker wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
south. I'm a southerner, and I'm as tired of the
'racist hick' stereotype as anyone else broadly
stereotyped. Most of the racists in the south move
down from New York or other northeastern cities,
looking for 'kindred spirits'. To say that they give
us a bad name is an understatement.
Re:Well.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but once you sell something there is no way to protect it as secret.
CERT has bought and paid for this. They've earned this security breach and every breach like this.
Re:Interesting to note... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Double-edged sword? (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally, let's use a non-digital example. If (e.g.) Consumer Reports found a flaw in a popular child car seat that could cause severe injury to a child, which path would you prefer they take:
What usually happens in this scenario is that parents remove the childs seats in blind panic and as a result 10x more kids are killed by seatbelts and not being in carseats than would have been killed by the carseats.
Lucky we removed those car seats isn't it?
Alex
Re:Interesting to note... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't sweat it... we're already there.
DOD asked for delay to notify families (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You've spelled Cracker wrong. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's too fine a line to draw since cracking is one possible extension hacking. I have never understood why programmers don't want to be called programmers? I am a professional engineer and a programmer and I am happy with either title. I am also a hacker in the classical sense of the word but I never use the term about myself. In a lot of countries an Engineer can be anyone from the guy changes the oil in your car to the guy who designed the wing of a passenger jet. Engineers have to live with the widespread use of a title that can (for some of us) take years of professional training to achieve.
So I say to all you disgruntled hackers out there, don't be so touchy. Prove yourself by actions not by a label. If you're good at what you do, you don't need a label.
Re:CERT is incredibly stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
That vulnerability is a simple buffer overflow. RedHat had a patch out for it in less than a day. This whole 'wait for the vendor to fix it' thing just results in lazy vendors.
That would be because Red Hat and others took advantage of the time CERT takes from vendor notification to general release. This is exactly what CERT is trying to do - release the vulnerability info at the same time vendor patches are ready.
Won't last long (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You've spelled Cracker wrong. (Score:1, Insightful)
Like the phrase "human rights violation"? Which is only something done to Americans and not to captives at Guantanamo Bay.
Re:Interesting to note... (Score:4, Insightful)
The folly of relativism... Okay--just got back from freshman philosophy class? You define truth as absolute. Next you state that if truth is not absolute, it is meaningless. Then you offer this as support for the statement that relativism is folly. Go talk to your professor and ask the meanings of the terms "tautology" and "non sequitur"
But truth, in this context is not absolute.
It is not the fact that people die in war, people are losing jobs, votes were miscounted, etc. that one wishes to hide. The facts will eventually come out. But they will be presented at a time and in a manner that supports the agendas of the presenters.
It is "the truths" that war is justified, we should spend money on new trucks, and GWB is our just and wise leader that are of interest.
Don't get caught up arguing semantics. What is going on is the control of the hearts and minds of the people. This is achieved through emotion, religion, fear, greed, salesmanship, torture... These are methods that have nothing to do with empirically provable facts.
To control "the truth" is not to hide the facts, but to convince people that only the facts you like are relevant. Anyone who campaigns against this view threatens that control of "the truth"
Those who wish to control "the truth" often state their truths as dogma, and legislate against contravening statements or even privately held views.
In many situations, sedition, heresy, treason by word are crimes. Remember the witch hunts--in the 1600s and the 1950s. Same process; different details. There is a very legitimate concern that those in power--in order to maintain power--will criminalize speech (in any form) that threatens their control.
This is why the first amendment to the US Consititution is the first amendment. It's that important.
BTW, the full text of the above referenced document is available at Thomas [loc.gov]. It's an enlightening read if you haven't already. The original text is only 14-15 pages long; check it out!
Re:Double-edged sword? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:CERT is incredibly stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Are reports really secret? (Score:2, Insightful)
Keeping the report "secret" does not block access to crackers.