bugtraq
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Re: "Which is more secure? Oracle vs. Microsoft" (is it a fair compa

To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com
Subject: RE: Re: "Which is more secure? Oracle vs. Microsoft" (is it a fair comparison?)
From: Shawn Fitzgerald <sargon97@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:41:59 -0800
Delivered-to: sp-com-lists@consult.net
Delivered-to: bugtraq-list@securepoint.com
Delivered-to: mailing list bugtraq@securityfocus.com
Delivered-to: moderator for bugtraq@securityfocus.com
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:content-type:to:from:subject:date:x-mailer; b=T64RlFvKWxqfgxFeaYyAFHpakKv4XhrISAt7zshm2Q6v4yWOHkGyPgygvMeuiAN2gkCnxwOkmbUs8k6dF2dk7N6bYFfq9wOwcEAYEIOYkyLocZ/PahYTeicL0bDJQ4cIUVLc4DoRjEt9RccJ7KygZBrZNJQAsj8JS/CKi4J72RI=
List-help: <mailto:bugtraq-help@securityfocus.com>
List-id: <bugtraq.list-id.securityfocus.com>
List-post: <mailto:bugtraq@securityfocus.com>
List-subscribe: <mailto:bugtraq-subscribe@securityfocus.com>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:bugtraq-unsubscribe@securityfocus.com>
Mailing-list: contact bugtraq-help@securityfocus.com; run by ezmlm
Not that I disagree (or know for that matter) but at blogs.oracle.com/ security/ they state that they, "Disclose the existence of vulnerabilities once cured, even if they are discovered internally."

Maybe someone should leave a comment correcting them or better yet invite them to discuss some of the issues brought up on this list.

Cheers, Shawn


-----Original Message-----

From: David Litchfield [

mailto:davidl@ngssoftware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 9:01 AM
To: Steven M. Christey; bugtraq@securityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Re: "Which is more secure? Oracle vs. Microsoft" (is it a fair comparison?)
Hi Steven,
> For example, there appears to be distinct difference in editorial
> policy between Oracle and Microsoft in terms of publishing
> vulnerabilities that the vendors discovered themselves, instead of
> third parties. This might produce larger numbers for Oracle, which
> appears to include internally discovered vulnerabilities in their
> advisories, whereas this is not necessarily the case for Microsoft
> [2], [3].
Oracle do not report issues they've found internally in their alerts. Every DBn in their alerts marries up to "public" flaws.
> In both cases, the lack of details can mean that multiple issues wind
> up with one public identifier; for example, Oracle Vuln#
> DB01 from CPU Jul 2006 (CVE-2006-3698) might involve 10 different
> issues, and this is not an isolated case. This can further muddy the
> waters.
...which is why I broke every actual flaw down in the document. For example the following flaws are all covered by CVE-2002-0154 xp_proxiedmetadata overflow CAN-2002-0154 MS02-020 xp_mergelineages overflow CAN-2002-0154 MS02-020 xp_controlqueueservice overflow CAN-2002-0154 MS02-020 xp_createprivatequeue overflow CAN-2002-0154 MS02-020 xp_createqueue overflow CAN-2002-0154 MS02-020 xp_decodequeuecmd overflow CAN-2002-0154 MS02-020 xp_deleteprivatequeue overflow CAN-2002-0154 MS02-020 xp_deletequeue overflow CAN-2002-0154 MS02-020 xp_displayqueuemesgs overflow CAN-2002-0154 MS02-020 xp_oledbinfo overflow CAN-2002-0154 MS02-020 xp_readpkfromqueue overflow CAN-2002-0154 MS02-020 xp_readpkfromvarbin overflow CAN-2002-0154 MS02-020 xp_repl_encrypt overflow CAN-2002-0154 MS02-020 xp_resetqueue overflow CAN-2002-0154 MS02-020 xp_unpackcab overflow CAN-2002-0154 MS02-020 If someone is willing to sit down and do the research the details are "out there" and in a paper such as the comparison it was imperative to have these details.
Cheers,
David Litchfield
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>