4 ms·
Yet http://secunia.com/advisories/52956/ http://secunia.com/advisories/52956/ calls it "Impact: System Access" and "Successful exploitation may allow execution
by jbk 13y ago
Yet http://secunia.com/advisories/52956/ http://secunia.com/advisories/52956/ calls it "Impact: System Access" and "Successful exploitation may allow execution of arbitrary code."
Why wouldn't we be upset about that or call that a "lie"?
- nknighthb 13y agoI don't really care if you call it a lie or not. I care that you attempted to invoke the legal system over a dispute regarding a vulnerability. I also care that you, by your own admission, lied. Even if it were indisputably clear that Secunia did, in fact, knowingly lie about the vulnerability, I would still hold you in infinitely greater contempt for that sickening display of hypocrisy.
- jbk 13y ago> I care that you attempted to invoke the legal system over a dispute regarding a vulnerability. No, over defamation that they did in various public reports. Not about a vulnerability.
- belorn 13y agoWhat would you do in VLC place? Ignore Secunia? Use the public megaphone and try to out-yell Secunia using twitter/media/blogs? Driver over to their HQ? I total agree that invoking the legal system is a large step that shouldn't be invoked in vain, but I don't see many other options VLC team had here other than just ignoring Secunia.
- nknighthb 13y agoA calm, thorough, carefully-proofread writeup free of legal threats and temper-tantrums sent to Secunia, and posted to FD, the VideoLAN development list, and the VideoLAN website, explaining VideoLAN's position. Direct future inquiries on the subject that don't proffer new information to that response. Anything else is a gross overreaction to a garden-variety disagreement or misunderstanding.
- jbk 13y agoIt's always simple to give advise after the crisis... We had nothing to say publicly before, because those are security issues...