Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update Readme with Little Flocker info. #128

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 18, 2016
Merged

Conversation

mlinton
Copy link
Contributor

@mlinton mlinton commented Aug 18, 2016

Added information on JZdziarski's little flocker to protect file system writes. This software is still beta though so it might not be the best fit for the guide. Thoughts?

Added information on JZdziarski's little flocker to protect file system writes.  This software is still beta though so it might not be the best fit for the guide.  Thoughts?
@drduh drduh merged commit 9d778bc into drduh:master Aug 18, 2016
@drduh
Copy link
Owner

drduh commented Aug 19, 2016

Thanks for bringing this issue to attention, @pwnsdx.

It is a troubling read, indeed. I do admire Jonathan Zdziarski's work very much and sincerely trust his good intentions. But you are correct the software is not (yet?) of sufficient quality to make as a default recommendation, at least not without a caveat; I would like to still keep it in the guide - his work needs more scrutiny and feedback - but will make a note to check this conversation for curious minds. Is that satisfactory?

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Aug 20, 2016

Hello,

Sure, thanks you but I think running softwares like Little Flocker or BlockBlock lower the security of Common Sense 2016 by letting believe the user he can run anything including unsigned stuff and he will se it if there is something strange.

Regards,
S

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Aug 29, 2016

@drduh Little Flocker is still in alpha, but is stable enough for general use. I'll be releasing a beta soon. @pwnsdx seems to think generating a false negative is a "critical vulnerability" or a 0day; that's like saying sending local network traffic with Little Snitch is a 0day. I think we all have better things to do with our time.

@drduh
Copy link
Owner

drduh commented Aug 29, 2016

I am looking forward to trying the beta product and putting this matter to bed. Agreed the bickering is unproductive; I think we all have the same goals in mind. I'm sure when Little Flocker and similar software reach full maturity, they will be of great benefit to us all.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Aug 29, 2016

Funny to see @jzdziarski trying to discredit me in a way that is so lame. Have you counted the ways I've found to bypass partially/entirely your tool?

https://gist.github.com/pwnsdx/1afa3f5bd62e661438976ab3c78bd507
https://gist.github.com/pwnsdx/821133952b30875fa16985ac4800f521
https://gist.github.com/pwnsdx/60c1cdf18cf8f303d2038405de032126
https://gist.github.com/pwnsdx/e404fbed3814db8404634740f1e24176
https://gist.github.com/pwnsdx/78b2a1e44c971b9e0127fd569395fc47
https://gist.github.com/pwnsdx/d30dce654d8733dd6704cf1b1adbc287

Yeah there are a lot. Thanks to me I've reported the majority until you treated me like shit. And FYI, a 0day (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-day_(computing) in case you want to hear about) is an undisclosed vulnerability. These things, I have 5-10 regarding your tool and as I said I won't report them anymore as you treat people like shit. Low or high severity. I really hope they will be fixed before the stable release but for now, people are running on a insecure software so this is why I came up here to ask @drduh if he could fix the text.

For my part, even as a "beta", I won't recommend it to be featured on this repo like a trusted tool. The current text is nice and please let it this way until the stable release comes out and a full audit has been made by a trusted third-party. You may be surprised by the ways to bypass LF.

Regards,
S

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Aug 29, 2016

False negatives are not critical, or even serious, vulnerabilities, nor should anyone consider your findings 0days. The few other bugs you've cited were reported by someone else who was code reviewing the project and have long been fixed. Please stop spamming everybody with your drama. That is all.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Aug 29, 2016

Ah, I see what you are trying to do and I'm going to play to that game:

And this one is a false negative? https://gist.github.com/pwnsdx/634bf6b8a737b4a512c95ee8c2ea808d

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Aug 29, 2016

And if you'd have filed that before you were blocked for harassment, this -bug- (but not really a vulnerability, for a number of reasons) would've gotten addressed. Incidentally, what you are doing on this thread is harassment also. I've made it clear I don't want to hear from you. I won't reply to this thread again. My apologies @drduh for letting this drama find its way into your issue.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Aug 29, 2016

Said the guy who mentioned me on a topic that is 10 days old.

@drduh
Copy link
Owner

drduh commented Aug 29, 2016

I don't like it when mommy and daddy fight.

Repository owner locked and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 29, 2016
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants