Agreed. I also feel that why should a company pay this 3rd party for a patch for a vulnerability that isn't really *huge* like a slammer or code-red deal. I'm sure that Microsoft will patch it, for free. If the source isn't available for the 3rd party's patch, how do we know what it's really doing? How do we know it isn't a security hazard? At least Microsoft is a trusted source, and did I mention free already?
If a home user is THAT worried about this vulnerability, they're already aware of what it does and therefore should know better. Just wait for Microsoft to release the patch is what I say, FWIW. Exibar ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gregory A. Gilliss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 2:29 PM Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Internet Explorer URL parsing vulnerability - fix available > Well his post gives me some pause...since this is a "shareware" product > (the poster is out to make some $$$ for themselves) I wonder that it doesn't > count as a commercial solicitation. Besides that, AFAIK the URL filter > is not available in source code format (for peer review). IN short, I'd > say that this is about as far from "full disclosure" as you can get, > albeit that it does appear to address the vulnerability... > > G > > On or about 2003.12.16 16:31:54 +0000, Frank Hagenson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: > > > A fix for this vulnerability is available at my website: > > http://www.abracadabrasolutions.com/UrlFilter.htm > > > > Regards, > > Frank Hagenson. > > -- > Gregory A. Gilliss, CISSP E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Computer Security WWW: http://www.gilliss.com/greg/ > PGP Key fingerprint 2F 0B 70 AE 5F 8E 71 7A 2D 86 52 BA B7 83 D9 B4 14 0E 8C A3 > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html > > _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
