[33694] in bugtraq
Re: W2K source "leaked"?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Zhenkai Liang)
Fri Feb 13 12:52:32 2004
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:57:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Zhenkai Liang <zliang@seclab.cs.sunysb.edu>
To: Gadi Evron <ge@egotistical.reprehensible.net>
Cc: "bugtraq@securityfocus.com" <bugtraq@securityfocus.com>,
"full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com" <full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com>,
Thor Larholm <thor@pivx.com>
In-Reply-To: <402BF4C4.2010802@egotistical.reprehensible.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0402122356110.24934-100000@qin.seclab.cs.sunysb.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Microsoft has confirmed the leak. See the link below:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/Feb04/02-12windowssource.asp
Zhenkai
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Gadi Evron wrote:
> 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
>
>
