From: Pranay Kanwar (warl0ckmetaeye.org)
Date: Fri Aug 17 2007 - 02:27:33 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

I fully agree with your explanation and reason on the JWIG issue.

regards

warl0ck // MSG

Steven M. Christey wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Pranay Kanwar wrote:
>
>> Frankly i now feel, that its not SecNiche's fault entirely, it has got a
>> lot of encouragement from its past invalid and absurd claims.
>>
>> Such as
>>
>> _JWIG Context Dependent Template Calling Denial of Service Vulnerability._
>> http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm?cvename=CVE-2007-3816
>> http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/24974
>> http://xforce.iss.net/xforce/xfdb/35515
>
> I characterized this as a design limitation that could become an issue in
> applications that are written using JWIG, not JWIG itself:
>
> http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2007/Jul/0580.html
>
> Yet nobody followed up on this to dispute my assessment or agree with it.
> What is your opinion?
>
>
>> Also i am pretty sure the above links will stay forever and i don't suppose i
>> have to explain why.
>
> The CVEs will remain as a record of a report that was heavily disputed;
> unlike other vuln DBs, CVE and OSVDB don't just erase records when an
> issue is disputed. We want a provable resolution to such disputes, if one
> ever arises.
>
> - Steve
>

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]