full-disclosure - Administrivia: Binary Executables w/o Source

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: attica at stackheap.org (S . f . Stover)
Subject: Administrivia: Binary Executables w/o Source

On 18 Aug 03 03:40:34PM Len Rose[len@...sys.com] wrote:
: My message was not about the size ofd
: the file but rather about the sheer useless re-transmission
: of a binary (any executable) that no one in their right mind
: would actually run which is why I suggested that source code
: should be included next time.

Would that really matter though?  I mean, how would I know that the binary
included came from the attached source?

Plus, I do have quarantined machines I blow away and rebuild regularly that I
don't mind putting unknown binaries on from time to time.  Any my mileage
definitely does vary  ;-)

Just my 0.02.  I figure there's no list like FD for unknown binaries...

-- 
attica@...ckheap.org
GPG Key ID: 0xF8F859D0
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0xF8F859D0&op=index

"There is no such thing as right and wrong, there's just popular opinion."
-Jeffrey Goines
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20030818/e91a6778/attachment.bin