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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <28915501A44DBA4587FE1019D675F9831AE30E@grfint>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:43:19 +0100
From: "Rainer Gerhards" <rgerhards@...adiscon.com>
To: <full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com>, <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>
Subject: Is a precise spec better?


Hi lists,

I am seeking some advise. I am currently writing a what-is-to-become RFC
on the syslog protocol (http://www.syslog.cc/ietf/protocol.html). My
work is currently in draft status, which essentially means it can be
used for discussion but nothing is really fixed yet.

I have written quite precise guidelines on what a syslog implementation
should do. There are good arguments that this is too precise. I am now
trying to get more feedback on the overall design decision. As such, I
have summarized things on a web page:

http://www.syslog.cc/ietf/why-indepth.html

I would appreciate all comments on this topic. As I am posting to
security lists, I would especially welcome a discussion if a precise
specification can eventually safe us some security trouble - and if the
effort is worth it.

Many thanks,
Rainer

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ