Slashdot Mirror
MS Excel exploit on auction
geo_2677 writes "Someone had put up for auction on eBay the details of an exploit in Microsoft Excel according to a recent article on Securityfocus. According to the article Microsoft has confirmed that this vulnerability exists, but in the meantime the original listing on eBay has been pulled. " The now pulled auction, but it does appear that Microsoft has confirmed the vulnerability in an eweek article.
eBay is infested with public domain repackagers and sellers of "information" that they seem to do nothing about. But if Microsoft doesn't like an auction, it's gone, apparently.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
Looking at the motivation this guy has, I can't really see how it can be good.
So, it was submitted to Microsoft on the 6th, and since then he's recieved a reply stating they'll probably be working on a fix. That was LESS THAN A WEEK AGO. Releasing vulnerabilities is something that, IMO, should only be done if (a) there is some specific need for everyone to know about it right now, or (b) requests for fixes have fallen on deaf ears or otherwise failed for an extended period of time.
This meets neither of those criteria.
- looking to make a profit from releasing details of a vulterability
- phrasing the auction in a way that makes it clear he wants the buyer to do something bad - "It can be assumed that no patch addressing this vulnerability will be available within the next few months"
Sounds to me more like some dumb little script kiddy that got lucky finding a small hole, but doesn't have the ability to do anything with it. Working from an illogical hatred of MS he's trying to get someone else to unleash a virus on the world on his behalf.
What a great guy.
No, criminal profiteering. The only type of person who could make use of the information apart from Microsoft is a criminal.
EBay has a right and a duty to stop trade in vulnerabilities same as they have a right and duty to stop trade in any other illegal material.
This is not 'full disclosure', its selling information to the criminals.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
You mean a security researcher or corporate security officer couldn't have used that information? People who believe that the suppression of information is okay because it could be misused are heading down a dark road, the price of return from which will have to be paid in blood someday by a future generation.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
I dont think it was very irresponsible, maybe only a little, it just lights that fire under Microsoft to fix it. Considering my lack of using unkown excel files I'm not too worried about it. Like some other posts say, it brought much less attention to the exploit than e-bay pulling it did.
No, criminal profiteering. The only type of person who could make use of the information apart from Microsoft is a criminal.
What about the system administrator trying to secure his networks? There are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone would want to know exactly what the vulnerability is so they are able to stop people from using it.
EBay has a right and a duty to stop trade in vulnerabilities same as they have a right and duty to stop trade in any other illegal material.
So vulnerabilities are now illegal material? Better call the cops and the feds to shut down Microsoft because they seem to be producing a lot of them.
This is not 'full disclosure', its selling information to the criminals.
Wouldn't that depend of the person who would have won the auction? See also point 1).
Cosidering that the opening bid was set at $0.01, I doubt he really expected to profit. Instead he probably just wanted to call public attention to the exploit and force Microsoft to address it quickly.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
eBay has no obligation to list anything in particuar. It is in their best intrests to list most auctions without objection since the more that sells the more money they make, but there's no obligation. If eBay management decided that they wanted to ban selling of all religious items or something, they'd be well within their rights.
Now if I worked for eBay and was the guy with his finger on the button, so to speak, for canceling autions, I'd pull this. Why? Well simple cost-benefit analysis:
It's entirely possible, even likely, this guy is lying (I'm talking from their perspective, pre MS announcement) and thus we'll just get invloved with having to refund someone's money in the end. But let's assume he's telling the truth. In that case we would be on the hook for a ton of bad publicity since no doubt the press would eat up the story of eBay welling hacking instructions, and we might even be civily or criminaly liable for knowingly allowing this to go on. Now weigh that against the 2% or so we'd make from the final sale, maybe a few hundred at most if the auction gets bid way up. Not even a blid on our balance sheet. Thus, we cancel the auction.
eBay's a business, pure and simple. They'll let you sell whatever you want (for a cut) unless they feel what you are selling might cause them trouble. That's why they ban some entire classes of items, like firearms. It's not illegal to sell firearms on the Internet, and there are sites that do it. However it's trickey, since they have to be shipped to a licensed dealer and so on. It exposes you to a lot more liability, liability eBay doesn't want, so they just outright ban them.