Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] performing cpu/time intensive computation in a protocol dissector

["Luis EG Ontanon" <luis@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Insecurity people panic... security people take action...

Security people that ban a program that finds/exploits a hole are not
security people... security people makes sure a well known a very
impacting vulnerabiliy is taken away.

I think that letting users to know that e.g. their Bank's website SSL
key is broken is a good thing, they will avoid using and start
complaining (As I did, now my bank uses a secure key, haven't I proven
the key I might have been using for longer).

The doctrine of not making people aware of vulnerabilities is a
botched one. The point is: Bad people will know about the
vulnerability. Having good people not knowing, makes them unable to
take action so the result is vulnerability.

It's wrong to blame who finds a problem for it...


On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Andrew Hood <ajhood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sake Blok wrote:
>
>> May I have your votes please? ;-)
>>
>> 1) Don't include the code at all
>
> There are enough weak key identifiers out there without burdening
> Wireshark with a CPU intensive test for a one off problem. The next time
> someone finds a weakness it is bound to be a different problem needing
> different discovery.
>
> I don't want to have anyone in our networks using a version of Wireshark
> with the ability to crack keys. It will panic the security people and
> they will ban Wireshark totally. Wireshark it too useful to let that happen.
>
> --
> There's no point in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes.
>                -- Dr. Who
> _______________________________________________
> Wireshark-dev mailing list
> Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
>



-- 
This information is top security. When you have read it, destroy yourself.
-- Marshall McLuhan