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.

51 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. More information and a few questions: by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First, in the interest of stimulating more informed discusion, here is some more information concerning the auction:
    • The actual article on SecurityFocus (not the abbreviated discussion article referenced in TFS).
    • The full text of the auction, courtesy of the good folks at the OSVDB blog.
    • The screenie of the actual eBay auction, again courtesy of OSVDB.

    From the auction text:
    The lot: One 0-day Microsoft Excel Vulnerability

    Up for sale is one (1) brand new vulnerability in the Microsoft Excel application. The vulnerability was discovered on December 6th 2005, all the details were submitted to Microsoft, and the reply was received indicating that they may start working on it. It can be assumed that no patch addressing this vulnerability will be available within the next few months. So, since I was unable to find any use for this by-product of Microsoft developers, it is now available for you at the low starting price of $0.01 (a fair value estimation for any Microsoft product).

    A percentage of this sale will be contributed to various open-source projects.
    Second, two questions:
    1. As the seller did in fact report this vulerability to Microsoft first, would his subsequent attempt to call attention to the vulnerability by posting it for auction on eBay be considered 'irresponsible'?
    2. Exactly which eBay rule did this auction break?


    Discuss.
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:More information and a few questions: by generic-man · · Score: 5, Funny

      The seller violated eBay's policy of Don't Fuck With Microsoft.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    2. Re:More information and a few questions: by Zeinfeld · · Score: 4, Insightful
      As the seller did in fact report this vulerability to Microsoft first, would his subsequent attempt to call attention to the vulnerability by posting it for auction on eBay be considered 'irresponsible'?

      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/
    3. Re:More information and a few questions: by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    4. Re:More information and a few questions: by sh00z · · Score: 5, Interesting
      2. Exactly which eBay rule did this auction break?
      Probably the restriction on downloadable media, because the seller stated intent to e-mail the file, but did not explicitly state that he is the copyright owner of the electronic file(s) for sale. It seems that M$ would have had a court injunciton to prove criminal intent.
    5. Re:More information and a few questions: by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 2, Interesting


      No, criminal profiteering. The only type of person who could make use of the information apart from Microsoft is a criminal.

      So you're asserting that a security professional could not use the information to create a patch or fix for this vulnerability?

      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.

      I'm having a hard time finding the exact violation on eBay's prohibited and restricted items page. Think you could point it out for me?

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    6. Re:More information and a few questions: by RaymondInFinland · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).

    7. Re:More information and a few questions: by Orgazmus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hopefully this one. It will be a good lession in not shitting in your own nest.
      Let the revolution begin, i say.

      --
      The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
    8. Re:More information and a few questions: by krgallagher · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "This is not 'full disclosure', its selling information to the criminals."

      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:

    9. Re:More information and a few questions: by onedotzero · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, a great many auctions start at the minimum in any given currency. One of eBay's listing fees is a proportion of the starting bid.

    10. Re:More information and a few questions: by Alsee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The -selling- of vulnerabilities in software is criminal activity any way you shake it.

      Ah yes, and a reporter who writes an exposè on rotten airport security and SELLS it to the New York Times is criminal activity any way you shake it.

      You have a a bizzare definition of "criminal" and "illegal", and you have no grasp of law. The law does NOT equal "I don't like it".

      By the way, if anyone wants to make Nitroglycerine here's how...
      Ingredients:
      Glycerine
      Concentrated sulphuric acid
      Concentrated nitric acid

      Glycerine can be bought off the shelf at your local drugstore. Sulphuric acid is better known as car battery acid, though you would need to distill ordinary car batter acid to higher concentration. Nicrtic acid is a bit harder to come across, but it's not that hard to make. Nitric acid is the primary component of ordinary acid rain.

      Simply mix the three ingredients VERY SLOWLY, over an ICE BATH.
      Waring - this reaction produces heat. Hot nitroglycerine is very very bad. It tends to go BOOM. Mix it as slowly as possible, and keep it as ice-cold as possible.

      After mixing, and assuming you haven't killed yourself in the process, there will be an oily brown liquid floating on top. This oily brown liquid is nitroglycerine.

      Undoubtedly you think that I should not have posed that information. *YOU* apparantly think that was illegal, and that I am a criminal for doing so. And you'd apparently also think it illegal for me to SELL that recipe on e-Bay.

      However You Are Wrong.
      In fact (assuming we are discussing American law) it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL for you to attempt to create a law against it. I invite you to read this Unityed Stated Department of Justice report to the Senate. The Senate asked for a report on the constitutionality and limits of their ability to create a law restriction bomb making information. The DOJ explain that such a law would be a violation of the First Amendment. That publishing such information CANNOT be illegal in the US. The limits of what can be criminalized is basically (1) acting with EXPLICIT INTENT to cause a crime to occurr, or (2) aiding and abbetting someone with EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE that you are aiding and abbetting a crime.

      I assume the guy was actually selling the info on how to exploit, therefore putting valid users and companies at risk....hmm...kinda sounds a tad bit little illegal to me

      I just published nitroglycerine making information. It is, in your words, "therefore putting valid users and companies at risk". It is not illegal and CANNOT be illegal in the US. I have no intent for anyone to commit a crime with that information. No one has asked me to supply it to them for the purpose of committing a crime.

      Why should an admin have to -pay- for the information? ...sounds kinda like blackmail in a sense.

      Blackmail is when you THREATEN someone.

      If I created a copyrighted work, one that happens to teach this information, you certainly cannot require me to give it to anyone for free. I have every right to remain silent and tell no one. If somebody wants me to teach them this information, then I can every right to ask for money before I sell them a copy of the instructional text I created.

      One would presume that Microsoft will... sooner or later... publish this information itself. If you want to wait for that then you can get the information free then. How about you bitch at Microsoft for not giving anyone this info for free now?

      If you want this info now, and if Microsoft refuses to give it to you, this guy is offering to give you a copy now. You apparently want this info. You apparently consider it valuable. If you want this guy to do work and send it to you then you have the choice of paying for it. Or not.

      So yes, eBay did the right thing here, imo.

      If you mean in terms of avoiding the hassle and expense of

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    11. Re:More information and a few questions: by StikyPad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except those issues are completely devoid of relevance. This isn't the Supreme Court deciding whether the auction should be legal because of "substantial noninfringing uses." This is solely an incident of a private entity deciding not to do business with another private entity. eBay is entitled to deny any listing for any reason it chooses, and the only measure of whether that decision was right or wrong is whether or not it protects eBay's interests. The only justification they need is that they didn't like the listing, and the only possible repercussions are the possible alienation of the massive vulnerability-purchasing demographic.

      On the other hand, they could have let the listing stand and exposed themselves to possible private or public legal action, tarnished their public image, and further encouraged people to test the proverbial waters with equally or exceedingly unconventional listings.

      But the good news, if you believe that eBay is eschewing a substantial opportunity, is that you have the chance to step in and serve the exploding market for software vulnerabilities by creating your own auction site. Maybe you'll get rich, or maybe you'll get sued so hard by Microsoft that you can't walk straight for weeks.. there's only one way to find out!

  2. What was the grounds for pulling the auction? by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:What was the grounds for pulling the auction? by mrRay720 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ----
      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 don't see anything wrong in charging a nominal fee for redistributing public domain work. It's not as if it's not still free somewhere else, it just saves you the effort of going out and rounding it up yourself. In a world of 'money first', allowing this can only help that little bit extra to keep said work alive. How is this different to the books of Dickens still being printed and charged for? The words themselves are free now, but you're paying for them to be wrapped up in a little paper package for you.

      Anyone spending money on an auction for info on how to get a 'free ipod' deserves to get ripped off.

      Quite how either of those are like someone trying to make a profit from selling info of a vulnerability potentionally harming millions to a virus writer is beyond me though.

      One is making a bit of money (indirectly) helping to keep public domain work alive, the other is trying to profit from the harm of others.

    2. Re:What was the grounds for pulling the auction? by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anyone spending money on an auction for info on how to get a 'free ipod' deserves to get ripped off.

      No they don't. The naive and/or stupid don't deserve to get ripped off any more than old people deserve to get their hipbones broken, or people who don't do martial arts deserve to get beaten up by muggers. These all happen, but they are not right, just nor the way things should be. That someone is weak is not sufficient justification for others to prey on him.

      I really hate this callous attitude of "If someone can't protect themselves, they deserve to have bad things happen to them, especially if it helps someone else to line their pockets". Especially since the people saying so are the first ones to complain when a bigger bastard, be it government or big business, makes them the ones who get ripped off.

      I guess it is fashionable today to preach about "personal responsibility" and pervert that to mean an attitude of utter pitilessness towards other human beings. Notice how these people are talking about others personal responsibility as an excuse for their heartlessness. They demand that their property is protected by law, but when that same law is used to provide food and shelter to other human beings - indeed, as soon as they are not the ones getting the benefits - these people start to loudly complain about "nanny state", "communism" or other similar things.

      Sorry for the offtopic rant, but I'm just so sick of this nonsense.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  3. Heh... by the_skywise · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now THAT'S capitalism!

    (Or at least a good demonstration of Ferengi behavior...)

    1. Re:Heh... by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ferengi rule of aquisition #193:
      If you're not a part of the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem.

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
  4. You can buy anything on Ebay by ATeamMrT · · Score: 4, Funny
    Someone had put up for auction on eBay the details of an exploit in Microsoft Excel

    I'll buy that one as soon as I buy the product which tells me how to remove all spyware by formatting my hard drive. It's only $7.95, and he sends the PDF file as soon as payment is recieved. Now if only I knew how to open a PDF file. :(

    Maybe I'll search ebay, and someone can sell me a product which tells me how to open a PDF file. :) :)

    But first, I need to bid on this guy who claims he can teach me how to get Plasma TV's for free from the manufacturers. He says in his ebay auction that manufacturers don't have enough people to test their product and they want me to help them!

    Ebay is more good than bad, but how can these people sell garbage?

    If the guy is selling information on how to exploit software, doesn't that violate the DCMA?

    I guess I should not complain. Ebay is the only place I know of that has everything, the worlds largest flea market.

    1. Re:You can buy anything on Ebay by xoip · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ebay is more good than bad, but how can these people sell garbage?
      One man's Garbage is Anothers Gold.

    2. Re:You can buy anything on Ebay by eldavojohn · · Score: 2, Funny
      Ebay is the only place I know of that has everything, the worlds largest flea market.


      You know, you're right. But I remember when I was a wee little nooblet, a lil' bastard at the computer (maybe 15 years old) and I would find endless amounts of entertainment at the number of channels on mIRC.

      And some of these channels would have "hackorz" and/or "warez" in the titles. Now, I'm not sure what the 'z' meant but they sure the hell were interesting channels.

      A particular channel, you could go in and say something like "www.englishstrumpets.com $5, paypal." And a few minutes later, someone with ops would say "englishstrumpets cracked, i_am_a_hackor@hotmail.com" and you would pay the five dollars to his paypal account and he would private message you the info to get into the site. Seeing as I didn't have a credit card, paypal account or any money, all I would do is list impossible sites to hack until I was booted. Ahhh, the days of little lil' bastardry, how I miss them.

      Anyways, this article reminded me of those forgotten channels.
      --
      My work here is dung.
    3. Re:You can buy anything on Ebay by IIH · · Score: 2, Funny

      Including a picture of an XBox 360, sold for the princly sum of £470, according to an article in the register.

      --
      Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
  5. Bad auction by mrRay720 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Bad auction by timeOday · · Score: 2, Funny
      Looking at the motivation this guy has, I can't really see how it can be good.
      What? Are you implying that greed is not always good? It's elementary Econ. 101: he has the supply, and spammers have the demand. Were he not to unleash this vulnerability on all of us, he'd be violating his sacred fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value. Besides, he and the buyer are both consenting adults, what right do we have to interfere with their freedom? Don't you think the invisible hand will solve this issue for us?
    2. Re:Bad auction by fufinache · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think the the seller was trying to get microsoft's patch team into 2nd gear. It sounds like he just thought that making a bit of money out of it would be a side effect for him (look at the original posting price, 1 cent is hardly any profit).
      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.

      Does that mean that if most of the parents in the world (say 80%) never used curse words, that their children will never swear? As long the remaining 20% parents are swearing, all the kids will eventually learn. I can think of 2 ways of solving such problem, either you fix the root of the problem (not the messenger) or you educate others on problem and how they can avoid it themselves.

      That was LESS THAN A WEEK AGO

      It's called responsibility, it comes with life, tasks that are seemingly impossible with very tight deadlines will pop up, and you will have to do them. Stop complaining and get back to work.

      I believe what he's done is rather smart; microsoft had a week to fix the hole (which is what they should be doing) + they could always bid on the auction themselves to keep the seller's mouth shut if they need the more time and hire more employees.

  6. Who is the bigger sucker here? by digitaldc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Who is the bigger sucker?

    The people who bid on an exploit to make Excel crash? Or those who believed that this was a critical security flaw? Or Ebay for posting it in the first place?

    If you really want to know how to make Excel crash, pick your poison - here is a free link:
    http://search.microsoft.com/search/results.aspx?st =b&na=88&View=en-us&qu=excel+crash

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Who is the bigger sucker here? by porkThreeWays · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The bug is believe to be a buffer overflow. This makes it a perfect canidate to execute malicious code within excel. Imagine being able to send an excel file to another company you don't think is being truthful with you and r00ting some of their boxen. You could pretty much spy on them all day without antivirus or antispyware picking you up. Imagine sending the excel file to a game developer and stealing source code for an upcoming game *hint* *hint*. 0-day exploits and unknown exploits are a serious problem because most companies think they are safe with anti-virus. Anti-virus supplies little/no protection against these kinds of attacks.

      --
      If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
  7. Censorship? by canuck57 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...meantime the original listing on eBay has been pulled.

    Why should not one be able to sell a vulnerability since they are in fact commodities?

    If you can profit from making them, profit from dealing with them then why not profit by discovering them? There are precidents like this, the patent system has companies that hold patents for no other reason than to sue other companies when they trip on a patent.

    All this will do is force the practice underground. Mind you, it does let the world know it is going on.

  8. Pricing? by DynamicPhil · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Actually, a much more intresting dussion is the:

    How would you go about setting the price of a security hole? What is the worth?

    "By monetary value of what could be lost exploiting the hole", or something else? Estimation of possible gains (user data like credit card info) through usage of the hole - the perpetrators view?

    Because, lets face it: There are people out there willing to pay for information like this.
    (and I'm not saying its right - just stating the fact). There are also others wondering how some things come to pass, and the damage bad code review actually causes.

    ok, sorry - possibly OT. But I *am* intrested in /. ers reasoning about "the value/possible cost of security holes".

    --
    "If it can be thought up, there exists at least one person trying to make it happen for real" - Phil
  9. Microsoft cannot handle the competition by erroneus · · Score: 3, Funny

    People are already paying for vulnerabilities in Microsoft software. They get them as part of the purchase of software licenses. (Now, having actual KNOWLEDGE of such vulnerabilities is another matter I suppose...)

  10. Fire under microsoft by muindaur · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  11. obAlphaCentauriQuote by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.

    "As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

    -- Commissioner Pravin Lal

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  12. I Don't think you read the RTFA by djdavetrouble · · Score: 5, Informative

    and shame on the moderators as well. This is obviously either a publicity stunt or this guy is just
    having some fun and saying fuck you M$ in a very public arena. Did you read this hilarious part?

    Special offers:
    Microsoft representatives get 10% off the final price. To qualify, you MUST provide @microsoft.com e-mail address and MUST mention discount code LINUXRULZ during checkout.


    parent says: phrasing the auction in a way that makes it clear he wants the buyer to do something bad

    No, specifically forbidden by auction text, with no winks or smilies or anything ironic.
    Your bid indicates that you agree to the following:
    1. You may not use this information for malicious or illegal purposes. The information you receive is for educational and
    research purposes only.
    2. The seller reserves the right to refuse delivery to anyone (a full refund will be issued).
    3. The seller will accept no responsibility for anything you do with this information.
    4. The seller cannot be held liable under any circumstances.
    5. Absolutely no refunds will be provided except for the reason mentioned above.


    Parent says: Looking at the motivation this guy has, I can't really see how it can be good.

    It calls to attention that a critical vulnerability will go unpatched for months after it has been properly disclosed. That is the way that it can be good.

    --
    music lover since 1969
  13. Argh! by JRHelgeson · · Score: 4, Informative

    The auction was canceled and I was the high bidder too!
    Here's a mirror of the auction.

    Joel

    --
    Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
  14. A honest days pay for an honest days work by CmdrGravy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It seems to me that E-Bay are behaving somewhat unfairly in pulling this auction. The seller has clearly devoted some time and effort into discovering this piece of information and has behaved responsibly by informing Microsoft of the problem in their software.

    I see no reason why he shouldn't be compensated for the work he's done here and if Microsoft aren't paying him then it's only fair that he offers his work to the highest bidder, it's perhaps unfortunate for Microsoft that he can leverage the most value for his work before they have had a chance to patch the problem but the seller doesn't have any obligation to Microsoft and their problems are no concern of his.

  15. The funniest part... by krbvroc1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the auction: Microsoft representatives get 10% off the final price. To qualify, you MUST provide @microsoft.com e-mail address and MUST mention discount code LINUXRULZ during checkout

  16. OT: Ebay terms and conditions by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was reading through ebay T&C, because the article made me curious.

    I, for one, am very disappointed that I cannot list a prohibited country for sale:

  17. seller's feedback list by bach37 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeed back&userid=fearwall

    Looks like the seller just bought a keystroke logger.... :)

    1. Re:seller's feedback list by bach37 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Correction: he just sold a keystroke logger.

  18. This could be a good way to set time limits? by rianman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This could be the start of a good way to embarrass companies into fixing bugs AND punishing bad people. Evil person wants to use the exploit, so they bid. Microsoft don't want the exploit usable, so they fix it (run with me on this one for a moment) The clever bit is, the Seller (who is honest, intelligent and socially responsible) sets the auction expiry time far enough into the future to cause a race between the two. M$ are put on public notice when the exploit becomes usable. If they win the race, Evil Person has to pay for no benefit (or M$ would give them a bad ebay rating - that'd hurt, right?). If they lose the race, public humiliation ensues. This is sort of like the Bounty system, in reverse. Or just plain blackmail. Either way, it would be fun to watch.

  19. I Think it's Pretty Funny by kadathseeker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm pretty sure it was meant as a joke, he just took a chance to jab at MS. Don't take it too seriously. After all, he only wanted 1 cent for it.

    --
    The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
  20. Supression of information is a necessary by ThinkFr33ly · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So is it OK for me to provide a detailed description of how to make a suitcase nuclear weapon, including people to contact to get the materials used in its production? How about the nuclear launch codes and how to use them? How about some top secret security codes used for encryption of data regarding national security? How about the security codes to your house alarm?

    Supression of information is a necessary fact of life in a world where information can be used to harm others.

    This does not justify supression of any information a goverment feels like supressing. Each case must be examined carefully, but to say that there is never a justifiable reason to supress information is dangerous and clearly at odds with reality.

    1. Re:Supression of information is a necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So is it OK for me to provide a detailed description of how to make a suitcase nuclear weapon, including people to contact to get the materials used in its production?
      Various law enforcement agencies would find the contact info useful...
      How about the nuclear launch codes and how to use them? How about some top secret security codes used for encryption of data regarding national security?
      I'd rather have leaked codes public and changed then known in a limited group (same for any other "secret" codes.) Anyway, I hope you need physical access to make use of them...
    2. Re:Supression of information is a necessary by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In the first case, yes. In fact, that right has already been upheld and Esquire (IIRC) published an article that describes how to make a nuclear weapon. In the second case, you're talking about classified material that only those with clearances who agreed not to disclose it would be privy to, and that's not a valid comparison. I find it ironic that someone with the name "think freely" would argue in favor of suppression of information.

      --
      I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
    3. Re:Supression of information is a necessary by aitikin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Big difference. If I gave out my security code to people, accidentally or purposefully, it would be my fault that my house was broken into. If the company has a flaw with their security system, it's their fault that my house is broken into. If it's public knowledge that there is this security flaw, I could possibly keep it from occuring in my house as well as complain to the company to try to get it fixed.

      --
      "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
    4. Re:Supression of information is a necessary by ThinkFr33ly · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you think that realistically, Microsoft could not release a patch for this in the 7 day timeframe of the original auction?

      Are you kidding? Of course not. Excel is used by MILLIONS of people and the testing that needs to go into any kind of patch takes a weeee bit longer than 7 days.

      In addition, we have no idea of the implementation details of the patch. Perhaps the offending code actually lives in a system library. This further adds to the time it takes to implement and test a patch.

      This guy put the exploit on eBay for purely egotistical reasons... and perhaps some greed. It had nothing to due with holding Microsoft accountable, and even if it did it would be questionable at best.

    5. Re:Supression of information is a necessary by arkanes · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Besides the other replies, most of which are reasonable, you're drawing an apples and oranges comparison. The security code is the secret. The method by which you obtained it is the flaw. Disclosure of the flaw is reasonable. Disclosure of the secret (usually) is not. Disclosure should also be to affected parties - if you know your neighbors code because the keypad is visible from the street, then you should tell him that. There's no special need to publish that widely, because only your neighbor is affected.

      On the other hand, if you know the code because theres a flaw in the system, it's reasonable to distribute that widely, so that it reaches all the customers involved - assuming that the company doesn't take reasonable steps itself. I know theres a common thought that you shouldn't take action into your own hands just because the company doesn't respond to your satisfaction, but on the other hand it's demonstrably true that many companies are much more interested in maintaining a pretense of security than real security, and they rarely have customers best interests at heart.

  21. Well alright lets run with this idea by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Interesting
    A security hole on its own has zero value. Take for instance those 1 dollar number locks you can get for your luggage. I can tell you how to break them but big deal. Not because a wire cutter will also work (that would leave evidence that the lock has been broken) but because the attached value is to small.

    A security hole would gets its value from the attached object. A how-to on bypassing shed locks is less value then a how-to on bypassing a bank safe.

    Next would come how easy it is to exploit the security hole. This one seems to require people to open an excell sheet. This obviously makes it off lesser value then say an exploit that works when a user opens a gif file via IE. Even more valauble would be an exploit that does not require the user to do anything but can attack any computer just hooked up to the net.

    Would there be money in it? You bet. Once you got an exploit using it to install a botnet is childsplay and botnets are big business. If you can deliver a 10.000 zombie network there are people willing to pay you hard cash in exchange. Even for just renting it.

    However you would hardly do this over e-bay. There are very few legit uses for a botnet and therefore your potential customers would prefer a less public way of trading it.

    But it does happen. It is one of the reasons we see so few destructive virusses vs the ones that turn a pc into a zombie. Used to be different. Once the majority of virusses either joked or destroyed your machine. Now you just got a zombie. Do I have proof?

    No of course not. Just stories tall tales from the server room and hints that should a company that hosts pay sites wish to do some advertising that they might know ways that do not involve constantly trying to find the next provider willing to be placed on a ban list for spam.

    Spam sells, ISP's are unwilling to hosts spammers, so the only question is, will spammers pay for a botnet that can do their spamming. Does the pope shit in the woods?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  22. It broke the "ebay doesn't like it" rule by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  23. Seriously.. by Jester6641 · · Score: 2

    I understand why they pulled it. Think about it...you've managed to collect about 10 people with a lot of money and bad reputations, along with about 10 people with a lot of money and a lot to loose to the people with the bad reputations. They're all there and you offer for auction the world's best superweapon. We'll call it a frickin' laser for the sake of argument. So you start bidding on the frickin' laser at $.01 and somebody dishonest makes an offer. This is immediately followed by another dishonest guy who wants it for himself, then an honest guy that doesn't want either of them to have it, then by another honest guy that doesn't know guy 3 was, in fact, honest and is just trying to save his own hide. Who's going to win? Well, it'll be the guy with the most chips to bet, but everyone's going to be on pins and needles to see which side of the fence he's on. It's basically holding all 20 people hostage to themeslves and seeing what shakes out. Pretty slick marketing if you think about it.

    --
    Jester

    Warning: This sig may be legally binding in England.
  24. WAAAYYY overpriced by SHP · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought M$ bugs were a dime a dozen.

    -SHP

  25. He is not to blame by lhommemagique · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hunting stores sells lots of guns and knives all the time, and if someone buys one of these and kills someone else the hunting store is not to blame. Just as this guy should not be blamed it his sale had lead to a misuse of the exploit.