Security Researcher Faces Jail For Finding Bugs 726
An anonymous reader writes "French security researcher Guillaume Tena, who is working at Harvard University, faces 4 months in prison after being sued by Tegam for reverse engineering its Viguard antivirus software and publishing exploit codes for a number of vulnerabilities. According to a ZDNet article, he could also be sued by Tegam for 900,000 euros in damages. More details are available (in french) on Guillaume's website and on the K-OTik's website."
Here we go (Score:5, Insightful)
When did greed become more important than helping someone?
If I break in your car... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most physical security (house locks, car locks, office building locks) is indeed "security through harsh penalties", where the locks are really not much more than an advisory symbol saying "don't do this".
Re:If I break in your car... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you bought a car, figured out some ways to break into YOUR OWN CAR, then published those ways to alert other consumers as to the lack of security the car has, should you still be arrested?
Re:If I break in your car... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll wait patiently here for the police.
Re:If I break in your car... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was at the mall and in the general area of my car gravitated to a maroon SL2, unlocked the door started to get in and noticed it was far too clean and had seat covers. I quickly got out and nervously tried to relock the door, but my key did not spin so I left. I didn't want to get into trouble for an honest mistake.
One time I also locked my keys in the car at a gas station. The attendand was unable to slim jim the door but went back into the shop and got a small saw zaw blade (or maybe a blade for a scrolling saw) with fairly big teeth. It was a little taller then a key but the teeth were about the right size. The attendant then stuck this into the key whole and jiggled for a about 30 seconds while turning and I was in. It took a few minutes to get the blade out though due to the fact that the teether were only slanted on one side.
Of course getting into cars ain't all that tricky anyway (big windows) and I can't speak for the ignitions.
Re:If I break in your car... (Score:3, Interesting)
Keys (Score:3, Interesting)
My parent's car (87 Accord)
Friend's car (Corolla)
Other Friend's car (Accord)
Only on the driver's side door though (and no ignition). That being the lock used most often, the tumblers can become worn and easier to open.
Re:If I break in your car... (Score:3, Funny)
I recall once giving my keyring to my then girlfriend to get something out of my car. Later on that day when we went to drive somewhere, I realised that my car key wasn't actually on my keyring, and was floating loose in my pocket. I asked her, incredulously, how she'd managed to g
GOD FUCKING DAMNIT! (Score:3, Informative)
Moot point.
Mute point my chapped ass.
Words fucking mean things.
God damn it.
Fuck.
Argh.
Seriously.
Ick.
Re:If I break in your car... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:If I break in your car... (Score:3, Informative)
If you'd like a starter course on property law, someone else will have to give
Re:If I break in your car... (Score:5, Insightful)
With software, you only own the right to use one instance of it - right to use, not right to do whatever you want.
Copyright stops you from copying. It does not prevent you from looking at the inner workings of something.
A book critic can find fault in the language the author uses. A music critic can find fault in the way an instrument is played. A journalist can find fault in the actions of soldiers. Why can't a software engineer find fault in the software he looks at? Oh, that's right, it's e-magical so we have to come up with entirely new sets of laws and ethics.
Re:If I break in your car... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If I break in your car... (Score:3, Insightful)
You just keep digging yourself in deeper, you know. Reverse-engineering is a well-established fair use of copyrighted material under copyright law. IBM PC clones came to market in large part due to Compaq (IIRC) reverse-engineering the IBM BIOS and creating their own implementation of the functionality they observed through that process. IBM couldn't touch them, because the functionality wasn't and can't be protected u
Re:If I break in your car... (Score:3, Insightful)
its a perfect example in that you only purchase a license to use it in a prescribed way.
Actually, that's a strongly contested issue in law right now. Some maintain that because the license is hidden away inside the box, it carrys no force and first sale applies. That is, if it looks and feels like you bought it, you DID buy it. If so, you are only restricted by copyright which does allow reverse engineering. Note that this does disallow public performance (such as playing a CD you bought on the radio).
Re:If I break in your car... (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, you wrote a post on
1. stated that software is *not* like a car
2. mentioned OSS and communism in the same sentence
and you were modded informative, not flamebait?!? You, my friend, are truly a god among gods.
-a
Re:If I break in your car... (Score:5, Informative)
But not a condition of sale, and they won't let you return the software, thus, the EULA is not a legal contract.
Re:If I break in your car... (Score:5, Insightful)
But to address your argument at face value, is it
a) better to have a hidden flaw that is only known to criminals (which is undoubtedly where the Sun heard about it from) that is built into cars for years to come, providing hundreds of thousands of easy targets...
or
b) expose the flaw to daylight and both force the manufacturer to do something about, and alert all owners of said existing cars to the problem so they can buy additional anti-theft devices.
I mean, come on. If we replace the word "theft" with "car has tendancy to spontaneously explode, killing occupants in a fiery inferno of doom", everyone and their dog would be lining up to lynch any bastard who tried to defend option a.
I don't know about you, but I would always prefer to know well in advance if my car was either easy to steal or about to explode.
Re:If I break in your car... (Score:5, Funny)
Ahhhhh, but if it was both easy to steal and about to explode, well, that problem just sort of solves itself, no?
Re:Here we go (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here we go (Score:2, Insightful)
OKAY!! I can't think of anything I'd rather do. Here's how I'll help...
I'll give you three words: GET A JOB.
Then go out and buy one, and you too can be unique, just like everybody else.
Re:Here we go (Score:2)
That is my theory on why people do stuff like get tattoos and piercings. It's not unique if everyone does it.
I already thought that and trademarked it so come to my country so I can sue you.
Re:Here we go (Score:2)
If the software maker presses this upon the researcher, the customers need to press the so
Re:Here we go (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, there isn't a law saying this guy should have reported the flaws to the company first before going public, but as a software developer, I always appreciate when people bring bugs to my attention and I try to compensate them justly (such as discounts if they are current customers, etc).
The damage is done, and company's own fault (Score:4, Insightful)
And my guess is, that's exactly what will happen. The company made a mistake by producing flawed software. The researcher didn't make that mistake, only pointed it out.
With these flaw(s) pointed out, the company didn't handle it in a grown-up manner. Instead of fixing the mistake, focusses on attacking the messenger. Dumb: mistake #2, again made by the company. And only makes the problem worse.
So customers may drop the product because it's flawed, stay away from the product/company because it's gaining a bad reputation, and because they dislike the company's response to the issue. Either way, all losses are caused by the company's actions, not by the researcher.
Regardless of the outcome, any company that handles software quality in this manner deserves to be dropped like a brick. Let's hope the (financial) fall-out for this company will be big.
Where is James T. Kirk when we need him?! (Score:5, Funny)
And my guess is, that's exactly what will happen. The company made a mistake by producing flawed software. The researcher didn't make that mistake, only pointed it out. With these flaw(s) pointed out, the company didn't handle it in a grown-up manner. Instead of fixing the mistake, focusses on attacking the messenger. Dumb: mistake #2, again made by the company. And only makes the problem worse.
KIRK: "Tegam, what is your purpose?"
TEGAM: "We are Te-Gam. We produce perfect software. We sterilize imperfections."
KIRK: "Tegam, you produced flawed software. You are imperfect.
TEGAM: "We are Te-Gam. We are perfect. We sterilize imperfections."
KIRK: "Tegam, you produced flawed software. That was your first mistake. You released the software without realizing this. That was your second mistake."
TEGAM: "Error! Error!"
KIRK: "Tegam, you handled the Tena situation in a childish manner. Instead of fixing your mistake, you focused on attacking the messenger. You sued the messenger. That was your third mistake.
TEGAM: "Error! Error! Faulty! Faulty! Must sterilize!"
same difference (Score:5, Insightful)
You miss the point entirely... (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes to vulnerabilities, it is presumptuous to assume that you are the first to discover the bug. We have discovered countless bugs that we've never disclosed to anyone... partly because of fear of this type of retaliation, but mostly due to apathy to the whole mess we call the security industry.
Whether you inform the vendor first or not is really not consequential. Those who are keeping up to date with information will know about the vulnerability when it becomes public in an advisory and can take their own appropriate actions to defend, even if that means take the resource offline until a patch is made available.
An uninformed person will not only miss the advisory, but will likely miss the patch as well.
Also, don't overlook the fact that the vendor is not in control of the information. Since they are not finding the bugs, they are not going to be able to contain the information. This is especially true when "bad" people find and control the information. When a "good" person, IE someone who is sharing the information freely with the public without direct financial gain, decides to donate their time for your benefit, you should respect them and look favorably upon them.
I don't really care either way, but if I had to choose I'd rather see full and immediate disclosure rather than the find a problem, alert the vendor, and sit there policy that companies are forced to endure.
It turns out people really like to keep their heads buried in the sand. If they don't know about a problem, maybe it doesn't exist? Darn
The point, entirely. (Score:3, Insightful)
Time to stop. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:same difference (Score:5, Insightful)
"Actually, companies usually don't take any different stance when they're notified of their bugs before public disclosure. But at least that gives them the chance. So when published, the disclosure leaves them no recourse to this diseased retaliation; they are more pressured to fix it instead of making matters worse by killing the messenger. In this case, the messenger (apparently) made matters worse, by disclosing publicly (including bad guys) before giving the company a chance to fix the problem. That is a crucial distinction between his somewhat reckless actions and those of other whistleblowers."
That's a really decent analysis. Thank you for that. The distinction between acting responsibly and acting foolishly is often a little difficult to discern, especially at first glance.
The thing that upsets me, though, is that apparently foolhardiness by the whistle blower carries a penalty of over USD 1 million and potential jail time, whereas the (arguably criminal) negligence of software makers seems to carry no cost at all.
Re:same difference (Score:3, Interesting)
In theory. (Score:3, Insightful)
The chance to what? Sue or threaten to sue the researcher and get a gag order placed on them before they're able to warn the users of the software, preventing the vulnerability from ever being seen?
I agree that notifying the company first is the responsible thing to do, but only if the company is going to be responsible which fewer and fewer a
Re:same difference (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Here we go (Score:2, Insightful)
For all the people that say this is two different worlds its not, both companies have a right to have there products do what they say there going to do. Nobody thinks that there airbag won't deploy when they get into a crash,
Re:Here we go (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as I'm concerned, if they can tout their software's capabilities to the public, he has the right to showcase its weak points in the same forum.
Re:Here we go (Score:3, Informative)
This was buggy anti-virus software. Users were at risk every day they kept using it. Unlike an OS, which people mostly just have to keep using till a patch is released, it's easy to replace this with something that works better, or at least not
This culture will be justly unlamented (Score:4, Interesting)
And don't laugh at the naked pricks when they get their just desserts.
You'll be branded a terrorist, halled off to gitmo (or worse) and cornholed by our men in green (or worse, perhaps by other men in dark suits).
We have managed to do something our enemies never could: set up architectures of control designed specifically to keep our society from correcting its errors and improving itself.
No society that does this to itself survives even in the short term. Ours will be no exception, and I for one don't feel a great deal of lament for it anymore.
Re:Here we go (Score:3, Insightful)
So, there are lots of makers of expensive vaults and safes. Some are better than others. If you deliberately post information on how to break into the good (but not the best) models, are you pointing out mistakes, or providing assistance to those that thrive on such vulnerabilities? I say the latter. It's all about the venue in which you present the info. Sending an e-mail to the maker is one thing, but posting it online, no matter how much of semi-good-intentioned drama queen you a
Re:Here we go (Score:4, Insightful)
Should Consumer Reports, their reporters, or editors be criminaly or finacially liable for posting the exploits? Should they contact the manufacturer and not inform the public? Should they be applauded and rewarded for offering the consumer a service? I'm sure your smart enough to figure out the answer there.
If my antivirus software or firewall isn't secure than I sure as hell want to know about it!!!
Re:Here we go (Score:3, Insightful)
fucking moderators on this site need to be kicked in the head
yeah *this post* is a troll, have at it
Re:Here we go (Score:3, Insightful)
The guy didn't just "point out someone else's mistake" - he produced and published exploits to allow access into the system.
You want to point out a mistake, there's plenty of legitimate channels for doing so which don't involve hackers (or crackers, if you prefer the outdated ear
Re:Here we go (Score:3, Funny)
What were his intentions? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hacked by Chinese! (Score:3, Insightful)
When it comes to vulnerabilities, it is presumptuous to assume that you are the first to discover the bug. We have discovered countless bugs that we've never disclosed to anyone... partly because of fear of this type of retaliation, but mostly due to apathy to the whole mess we call the security industry.
Whether you inform the vendor first or not is really not consequential. Those who are keeping up
Re:What were his intentions? (Score:5, Interesting)
Who gives a fuck?
If you are a security researcher, you look for security holes, right? If you are a responsible researcher, and you find some security holes, you better publish them, right? Right? RIGHT?
WRONG!! Hear ya, hear ya, hear ya, from now on doing the responsible thing will get you jail time, and a stiff $900,000 bill. From now on, the right, responsible, thing to do when you find security holes is to sell them to spam virus hackers. That way you:
1. Never get caught.
2. Profit (note lack of
No moral problems either, since the company who looses is the bunch of asshats who'd put you in jail for pointing out their bug, and the people who get spammed are the same shitheads that made the stupid law possible.
Fuck, I'm pissed. Better go drink my milk. Good thing I'm not a security researcher.
What's next? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but make a film about how Islam treats women (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's next? (Score:2, Funny)
Depends, does this happen in a red state or a blue state?
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What's next? (Score:3, Funny)
Will the little Dutch boy be executed for sticking his finger in the dike?
As long as the dyke consented, I don't see the problem.
Ohh... dike...
This would set a terrible precedent (in France...) (Score:5, Insightful)
The company had two options. Take on board the issues and fix them, or get in a hissy fit. They got in a hissy fit. Well done. Instead of responding to issues that software does have in an adult manner, they've just made themselves look petty and bad.
Re:This would set a terrible precedent (in France. (Score:3, Insightful)
They make themselves look like idiots but they make this guys life hell while they are doing it. The sad part is, it may not effect their business (lusers won't know about this) but the cost of a this lawsuit will haunt him for a long time.
not to mention the chilling precedent. I especially like this quote "If independent researchers are not allowed to freely publish their findings about security software then users will be only have "marketing press rele
That USED to be true. (Score:3, Informative)
Under the DMCA, reverse engineering IS illegal. Specifically if it is meant to circumvent copy protection schemes, but in practice the "spirit of the law" could easily be presented as banning all reverse engineering of all kinds.
To make things worse, the click-through license usually also states that reverse-engineering is proh
FYI (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FYI (Score:2)
p
Re:FYI (Score:5, Funny)
Re:FYI (Score:3, Funny)
Sheesh! Obviously the fix is to take him apart piece by piece, see how he works and then try to reassemble him in a better order
And I thought European courts are... (Score:3, Funny)
I've considered moving to France before... (Score:4, Insightful)
I absolutely hate this backwards shit. Software engineers and governments and everone just best get used to the fact that people are going to reverse engineer everything they can. Until they get used to it, lawmaking is just going to go overboard, stifling development and competition.
And I believe the proper response to pointing out an error in your system is "Thank You."
Re:I've considered moving to France before... (Score:3, Insightful)
Beyond that, software is an intangable entity that is very difficulty to track. Discouraging people from breaking into the software they've bought is hard psychologically. What different is this than publishing mods? What's the difference between that and souping up your car and making a website? Software hack
Bad analogy (Score:3)
Well, you see, with a physical object like a car, minor variances in materials and manufacturing can lead to random defects showing up in any specific vehicle.
With software, unless the media it came on is damaged, it is unlikely that the version that you bought is different from the others sitting next to it on the shelf. Binary copies are exact copies.
The analogy also doesn't hold because it isn't like "opening the hood" (though I wonder why you'd open the hood to inspect the brakes, but I digress) and taking a look. It is more like he hooked up wires to the control box and did a packet scan on the computer signals in the computer.
Re:Bad analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Which should be equally encouraged.
If it becomes illegal for people to figure out how things work, we'll find ourselves living in a society of morons (even more than now).
Re:Bad analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
The master cylider for the brake system is under the hood. If you needed to check that, or the level of brake fluid, you'd need to open the hood.
Re:Bad analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, you see, with a physical object like a car, minor variances in materials and manufacturing can lead to random defects showing up in any specific vehicle.
It is also possible for a certain defect to occur in every single car of that model.
You mention manufacturing flaws. In the case we have here it is a design flaw, which is just as applicable in cars as it is in software.
Don't agree... (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact recalls occur very often. Your point about media being damaged is the same as "warranty for parts and labor", reverse engineering is what causes recalls to happen. Two different things. So the analogy, while a bit weak, still holds.
Chilling Effect (Score:5, Funny)
Stories like this are just the Slashdot editors' way of warning us to shut up already about the Firefox rendering errors on this site. 8^)
Re:Chilling Effect (Score:2)
The real question is... (Score:5, Interesting)
...in related news........ (Score:2, Funny)
Won't probably hold up ... (Score:2)
Maybe somebody who knows French laws and the Fremch constitution could comment on this? Is science and academic freedom protected in the French constition (as in the German)? If so shouldn't this trump any intellecual property rights?
By this logic... (Score:5, Insightful)
karma (Score:5, Funny)
The French seem stuck in some Napoleonic fugue. (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank God for the First Amendment. For those of you not from the US of A, it guarantees freedom of expression in the most absolute terms. Short of something that incites violence (e.g. "let's kill him") or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, it is OK. The Pentagon Papers case essentially destroyed "prior restraint" for national secrutiy reasons (as practiced in Britain).
Even countries that are supposedly as free as the USA are actually not. Politically incorrect things like "tribe A is stupider than tribe B" will get you put in jail.
I'm reminded of the theme song from "Team America: World Police". Too rude to print here, it would probably get you put in jail in some countries.
Only America could produce someone like "Ol' Dirty Bastard".
Re:The French seem stuck in some Napoleonic fugue. (Score:3, Interesting)
Er, I might be misunderstanding you, but in the USA you are free to shout racism and hate from the mountaintops, whereas in a lot of European countries you'd get tossed in jail.
Over here, speech is protected, and that includes virtually all forms of communication. Personally, I prefer it this way too, every now and then I get neo-nazi flyers in my mailbox, but that itself isn't hurting anyone. I'd defend thei
Re:The French seem stuck in some Napoleonic fugue. (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you've heard of Jean-Marie Le Pen? [frontnational.com] He is an openly racist politician to the extreme far right of the French political spectrum. He's been around for decades and in spite of proferrin
Poor phrasing (Score:5, Interesting)
The wording seems to imply that he was being sent to prison as a consequence of being sued, but even in France I imagine there's a clear distinction between civil and criminal law. Or have they brought back debtor's prison?
Re:Poor phrasing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Poor phrasing (Score:3, Funny)
It is not a prison it is a Freedom Centre.
Nothing to see here Citizen, move along.
Re:Poor phrasing (Score:3, Informative)
suppose it was a defective car. (Score:3, Insightful)
How did software companies get all of these special rules for them if stuff that doesn't work.? If it were a tire or a car or a bridge or a robot, they could never get away with it. But if software doesn't work we are all supposed to just buy the upgrade.
Re:suppose it was a defective car. (Score:3)
It can "harm" someone (within the legal definition of the word). That is, a virus scanner that fails to catch a virus can result in lost time and data (both are separate harms). If he recognized a potential for "harm" and let people know, he should be lauded, not prosecuted.
When Will People Ever Learn? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:When Will People Ever Learn? (Score:3, Interesting)
But it gives the script kiddies chance to exploit whatever vulnerability first. Why is full disclosure a better model then a warning and delayed full disclosure?
Not just overseas, shoot first in America too (Score:5, Interesting)
(long story deleted)
This US company claimed because I had exploit code, I was in posession of its clients credit card numbers and was attempting to extort said company for cash and source code. I got a serious grilling from the FBI, who informed me that I did the wrong thing by reverse engineering their billing code and finding how easy it was to decrypt it.
I guess the basic idea is that if something is insecure, noone should ever try to get it fixed.
The company's position (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The company's position (Score:3, Interesting)
Also interesting is this statement about the product in question: ViGUARD's main advantage is that it does not need virus signatures to stop infections. I wonder if it merely protects a system against active infection and doesn't take any action against dormant viruses that are "just passing through"?? Without a signature
Someone, think about the customers!! (Score:3, Interesting)
I saw a number of posts where people saying that uncovering security vulnerabilities and publishing the research may hurt the customers. OK, let's put that to the test, let's imagine that we are in the world where such publications are prohibited. Last time I checked, the major driving force behind the scientific research was a desire to be recognised. Yes, white hats and black hats have the same personal reason to do what they do -- they want to be famous. If the only way for a white hat to get famous is the court hearing, then you can say bye-bye to the independent security research. From that point on we will be finding out about vulnerabilities when our systems turn against us. As a rule, patches will be coming out after vulnerabilities have been successfully exploited by bad guys. This would be the last blow to the positive meaning of "hacker", and who wants that? I would rather have white hats held in honour, and software companies held accountable for their mistakes.
And have you even tried to assess the threat of such publications? On one side you have a bunch of black hats who are poorly organized, do not have very effective channels of communication, have an inferior understanding of the vulnerable product; on the other side you have a corporation which does nothing but, which is on top of things, which, for a change, has the entire source code along with people who understand it completely. Who will win in this race? By jailing independent researchers they are effectively sending a message: we are incapable of beating a bunch of amateurs in our own game. The reality is that they simply do not want to, because it costs them more money -- they would rather watch us crash and burn, and then jump in and save the day. Once a day. For all eternity.
Granted, OT, but is that like healthcare or what?
I think virus writers should sue Tegam (Score:3, Funny)
not exploits, exploit CODE (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no problem with saying there is a bug in software and giving information about it. I do have a problem with someone releasing code that take advantage of said bug.
Re:Does security through harsh penalties work? (Score:2)
Re:"Researcher" = hacker (Score:3)
showing bugs from their product shouldn't be illegal, hell, viguard should be the fuckers to sue(only way i can figure out that their product really works is that it stops just about fucking everything from working - otherwise, how can you possibly possibly detect an ftp server from a trojanised one?).
besides.. being a '
Re:"Researcher" = hacker (Score:2)
Re:He got what he deserved (Score:5, Insightful)
Tough Shit.
Re:He got what he deserved (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope, that won't work. Vulnerability disclosures must include a working exploit; otherwise I could anonymously destroy my competitors by posting false but hysterical vulnerability reports about their products.
As I said in another post: software companies don't give us their software for free; similarly, we shouldn't give them consulting services for free. If I find a vulnerability, I don't owe the software company anything and I'm under no particular obligation to tell them before I tell anyone else.
Or are you saying it is irresponsible / immoral / illegal to state a provable fact about the security of a software system?
Re:He got what he deserved (Score:5, Interesting)
If he gave them due notice (it wasn't indicated in TFA), then there is nothing wrong with him posting the exploits.
Otherwise, he is just grandstanding. Pretty much all projects (FOSS included) classify security bugs until a patch or workaround has been worked out. After it has been fixed, though, I think there is an obligation to the users to let them know what happened.
Re:Think about the users. (Score:3, Insightful)
If he could find the open door, so could sombody else. But he was kind enough show the open door rather than leaving it open.
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:4, Interesting)
End users have rights, and a contract agreement not to reverse engineer is not fair competition since (near enough) every company would have such a clause, regardless of the customer's wishes. Reverse engineering makes competion act more swiftly, which any amount of feelgood on the customers behalf is not going to outweigh. Why do you think that companies form cartels when they can? Why do big companies lobby so strongly for stronger patents laws?
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:5, Insightful)
>void are very few indeed.
How about someone forcing you to agree to it so that you can use something you bought? Imagine next time you buy a TV, get how, and then find a piece of paper stuck on top of were to plug the antenna in. It says that by removing the piece of paper you agree that the TV is not yours, that they can come and pick it back whenever they want, and that they WILL do it if you watch channels that are not theirs or try to figure out how it works in any way and so on...
Re:Look dammit (Score:3, Insightful)
SECURITY THRU OBSCURITY IS NO SECURITY AT ALL.
Maybe you won't see people shouting bugs on the streets. But the hackers are there, posting the exploits in underground networks. Away from the police forces.
With public exploits, at least you can see the enemy (the security hole). With "unpublished" exploits, the enemy will strike you from behind.
Is this what you REALLY want?