http://slashdot.org/ is also ranting about it.
On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 21:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I know some people have been talking about this as being a false news > story, but now there is confirmation from Redmond. > > http://www.komotv.com/stories/29778.htm > > > > > Regards > > Thor Larholm > Senior Security Researcher > PivX Solutions > 24 Corporate Plaza #180 > Newport Beach, CA 92660 > http://www.pivx.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone: +1 (949) 231-8496 > PGP: 0x5A276569 > 6BB1 B77F CB62 0D3D 5A82 C65D E1A4 157C 5A27 6569 > > PivX defines "Proactive Threat Mitigation". Get a FREE Beta Version of > Qwik-Fix > <http://www.qwik-fix.net> > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gadi Evron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 1:49 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thor Larholm > Subject: W2K source "leaked"? > > > A couple of days ago a friend of mine drew my attention to the source > making rounds on the encrypted p2p networks, I was hoping it would take > a bit longer for it to be "out", but that was just day-dreaming. > > Thor Larholm just gave me this URL, as you can notice, the server is > busy: http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=17509 > > I never believed in 0-days. "New" or more to the point > un-known-to-the-public exploits and vulnerabilities exist and are being > used. > In my opinion "0-days" virtually don't exist. It's usually either some > vulnerability that is long known and a COP or a worm is created. Or > exploits that will nearly never see the "public" but exist and are used > by few individuals.. but now... I don't know. > > How often does a brand new exploit come out without prior warning and > "attack" the net? > > *If* this really is the.. _real_ source code for W2K (and according to > the article NT4 as well).... we'll see what happens next. > > People didn't need help finding vulnerabilities in Windows before, but > it just became a whole lot easier and a lot less demanding on the "m4d > #4x0r 5k111z". > > I can't really say that the article is right and the source was "leaked" > > or "stolen". The source is being sold/given (?) for years now to EDU's > and commercial companies for research purposes (not to mention China..). > > I suppose foul play is always possible. > > Can anyone confirm this is the real source code? How about a press > release? :) > > Gadi Evron > > _______________________________________________ > 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
