Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
Re: [Full-disclosure] Which is more secure? Oracle vs. Microsoft
From: David Litchfield (davidlngssoftware.com)
Date: Tue Nov 21 2006 - 10:52:29 CST
> Interesting paper. I do have a couple of points though:
> a. Your graphs show the number of risks found, however, it would be
> interesting to note the comparison in the severity of risks found. So
> I did a quick count on issues =~ (overflow) (format string):
> Microsoft SQL Count 39
> Oracle Count 19
The vast majority of the Oracle flaws are SQL Injection allowing a low
privileged user to gain DBA privs. Further - your count of 19 doesn't
include the Oracle overflows fixed in the CPUs - I don't break those bugs
out into details because the CPUs do that themselves.
> b. You also mention SDL being the reason as to why Microsoft have had
> so few issues. It seems to good to be true that SDL would really solve
> all these problems, then again maybe it has. Looking at my comments
> above (see a.), could I not suggest that some of these issues are not
> re-occuring due to stack protection being implemented in XP2 and
> Windows 2003?
You can suggest of course :) but it's not the case. It has nothing to do
with stack protection - it's deafeatable in many situations - even if it's
not apparently immediately exploitable MS will fix it as if it is.
> Kind regards,
> David Kierznowski
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/