, SecurityFocus 2001-11-09
Five computer security firms join Microsoft to set an official standard for limiting disclosure of software security holes
Expand all |
Post comment
Shocking developments
2001-11-09
H Carvey <keydet89 (at) yahoo (dot) com [email concealed]> (2 replies)
H Carvey <keydet89 (at) yahoo (dot) com [email concealed]> (2 replies)
Such a policy for disclosure already exists
2001-11-09
Dumky (1 replies)
Dumky (1 replies)
Such a policy for disclosure already exists
2001-11-10
H Carvey <keydet89 (at) yahoo (dot) com [email concealed]>
H Carvey <keydet89 (at) yahoo (dot) com [email concealed]>
...on second thought...Kudos!
2001-11-09
H Carvey <keydet89 (at) yahoo (dot) com [email concealed]> (1 replies)
H Carvey <keydet89 (at) yahoo (dot) com [email concealed]> (1 replies)
So what would force Microsoft to patch these holes if exploits are not published?
2001-11-10
Rafal Sybilla-Leszczynski (1 replies)
Rafal Sybilla-Leszczynski (1 replies)
So what would force Microsoft to patch these holes if exploits are not published?
2001-11-12
Anonymous
Anonymous
Microsoft have no server monopoly: this may reduce their share
2001-11-12
Kirsten Bayes (kirruth@hushmail)
Kirsten Bayes (kirruth@hushmail)
Only those who are members of this new club can claim to offer the latest up to date security services and make you safe.
If you are part of a small security consulting firm, or a small company Admin that can't afford managed security services. Then I'd suggest to make sure that the RFC's require enough information is provided to mitigate the new exposures, rather than just some dogfood they want to give the rest of us.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/281/8713#8713