{"id":132,"date":"2008-02-10T21:26:37","date_gmt":"2008-02-11T05:26:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cubist.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/2008\/02\/10\/russian-security-research-company-wont-share-thier-exploit\/"},"modified":"2008-02-10T21:27:07","modified_gmt":"2008-02-11T05:27:07","slug":"russian-security-research-company-wont-share-thier-exploit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/2008\/02\/10\/russian-security-research-company-wont-share-thier-exploit\/","title":{"rendered":"Russian security research company won&#8217;t share thier exploit"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>http:\/\/www.daniweb.com\/blogs\/entry2060.html<\/p>\n<p>Apparently a company in Russian named Gleg finds security holes in commonly used software and then sells information about the exploitabilities to their &#8216;clients&#8217; who pay lots of money to get knowledge like this. It sounds like they publicly stated that they have a buffer overflow attack that works against the new version of RealPlayer 11. The vendor that makes RealPlayer has repeatedly asked Gleg for information about the vulnerability, but Gleg apparently refused to disclose any information about the weakness. It is disorienting for me to think of what this Gleg company does as legal, but it does not seem like they are actually breaking any laws in doing this.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>http:\/\/www.daniweb.com\/blogs\/entry2060.html Apparently a company in Russian named Gleg finds security holes in commonly used software and then sells information about the exploitabilities to their &#8216;clients&#8217; who pay lots of money to get knowledge like this. It sounds like they publicly &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/2008\/02\/10\/russian-security-research-company-wont-share-thier-exploit\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":37,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-132","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-current-events"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/37"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}