In it's July issue, Wired Magazine published the full source code for the "Slammer" Internet Worm.

Wired's position on this discloser:

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

"We believe in security, not obscurity. We are fully behind those in the security community. And that means you shine a light upon the vulnerabilities and risks, you don't gloss it over and pretend it doesn't exist," says Blaise Zerega, managing editor of Wired...

..."The people who are in a position to attack the Internet and create viruses do not turn to Wired magazine for that kind of information. The people who are in a position to safeguard the Internet and defend against this sort of thing do turn to Wired magazine to read up on important issues like this," contends Zerega.

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+


I don't know about others here but I do nott turn to Wired to stay on top of security issues. The very nature or a RT magazine makes the information outdated.

I believe that the people that could help secure the internet already have this information. They know where to look. As do current virus writers. Those that would like to reek havoc but don't know how or where to look yet are the only ones that this information would be useful to. And although I believe in full disclosure the person that does the disclosing (IMO) should have some claim to do so. (e.g., be among the first to capture it in the wild.)

Now the question I'd like to raise here is:

Will this type of article help or hinder the case for full disclosure and is Wired acting in an ethical way?



Quotes taken from: http://www.informationweek.com/story...cleID=10300664