full-disclosure - Web sites compromised by IIS attack

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: denis at dimick.net (Denis Dimick)
Subject: Web sites compromised by IIS attack

Did M$ write ftp.exe? If so then they "own" it, they own the sources and 
all rights to the code. Redhat owns very little of the code you get on 
there CD.

Denis



On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Stuart Fox (DSL AK) wrote:

> > 
> > 
> > Paul,
> > 
> > If I'm understanding you correctly you don't understand 
> > Linux/Redhat. Or your just being silly to make a point. 
> > sendmail, wftp , php, etc.. are not owned by Redhat. Each of 
> > these applications are owned buy someone else and Redhat is 
> > allowed to re-distribute them. 
> 
> Yeah, but Redhat are the vendor, whether or not they actually wrote the
> software, they distributed it to you.  Their product is Redhat Linux
> (the distribution), if that has a flaw in it they shouldn't get exempted
> just because they didn't write it.  Could Microsoft then pass off
> support for ftp.exe for instance?
> 
> > 
> > And using the number of fixes/patches to an application as an 
> > indication of how god it is, is a bad thing. Using this logic 
> > you would have to say M$ is a good product.
> 
> I believe you haven't looked at http://support.microsoft.com for a
> while?
> 
> And besides, it was pretty clear that he wasn't using it as an
> indication of relative quality, just as an indicator of the fact that
> noone writes perfect software.
>