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: dcopley at eeye.com (Drew Copley)
Subject: Administrivia: Binary Executables w/o Source

I don't care about top posters too much, but on this list, because the
full mail headers are not posted [to the forum], it is difficult to post
a reply to someone's message if you see it but are not subscribed. [So
that the message remains in the thread, you need the message id... But
maybe this does not matter as many people do not know this or want to
deal with it].





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Person [mailto:devon@...hiumnode.com] 
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 3:55 PM
> To: Drew Copley
> Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] Administrivia: Binary 
> Executables w/o Source
> 
> 
> Top-posters kind of suck too ;)
> 
> [d]
> 
> > (Personally, I have never cared about binaries nor pictures 
> being sent 
> > as long as their size were small... It is just html email which I 
> > hate.)
> >
> > Just some food for thought from a contrary viewpoint.
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com
> > > [mailto:full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com] On Behalf 
> Of S . f . 
> > > Stover
> > > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 9:06 AM
> > > To: Len Rose
> > > Cc: Raj Mathur; full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
> >
>