[1]BADLOCK - Are 'Branded' Exploits Going Too Far?:

     So there's been hype about this big exploit coming, for over a
     month, before anything was released. It had a name, [2]a website and
     a logo - and it was called Badlock.

     And now it's out, and it's more like Sadlock - really a local
     network DoS against DCE/RPC services on Windows and Linux with some
     slight chance of pulling off a MiTM. No remote code exeuction, not
     even privilege escalation.

     ...

     Microsoft hasn't even labelled it as critical, merely important.

     Crucial? As it was marketed, hardly.

     ...

     There is a whole list of CVE's related, none of them are really
     critical.

     Another questionable point is that the person who 'discovered' these
     bugs, is a member of Samba Core Team..and works on Samba.

     So it's like hey, here's a bunch of vulnerabilities I found in my
     own software, let's make a logo for them and give them a name (which
     doesn't even really related to the vulns).

     So yah there's nothing really wrong with branding a vulnerability,
     to get awareness about something critical - get press coverage and
     get people fixing it. But this? This is a minor bug, with no real
     major production impact, only exploitable over a LAN which at words
     allows for a MiTM.

     ...

     A saw a great quote on Twitter..it went something like:

     "All these names for exploits are getting confusing and can be hard
     to remember/categorise - soon we'll need to invent some kinda system
     that assigns numbers to vulnerabilities..."

     LOL indeed.

     Are these bugs important enough to patch? Oh yes, absolutely. Did
     they need a month of marketing, a logo and a name to raise
     awareness? Absolutely not. They could have slid into regular,
     automated patch updates along with all other 'important' patches.

     It could have been a interesting story about a whole series of bugs
     in SAMBA, but it became a huge discussion about the Badlock
     clownshow. Sad.

   (Via [3]Darknet - The Darkside)

   I can't agree with this article more. It's a great read. I didn't mean
   to quote quite so much, but I get a hoot out of the story.

   We spoke about this on [4]PVC Security podcast when the story first
   broke. It looks like most if not all of our predictions came true.
     __________________________________________________________________

   My original entry is here: [5]BADLOCK - Are 'Branded' Exploits Going
   Too Far? A: Yes!. It posted Fri, 15 Apr 2016 20:31:57 +0000.
   Filed under: badlock, fud, full disclosure, InfoSec,

References

   1. http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/darknethackers/~3/LlwhHMgBg7M/
   2. http://badlock.org/
   3. http://feeds.feedburner.com/darknethackers
   4. https://www.pvcsec.com/
   5. https://www.prjorgensen.com/2016/04/15/badlock-are-branded-exploits-going-too-far-a-yes/