full-disclosure - Security Industry Under Scrutiny: Part One

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]

Message-ID: <3DCA66FF.6080000@guninski.com>
From: guninski at guninski.com (Georgi Guninski)
Subject: Security Industry Under Scrutiny: Part One

sockz loves you wrote:
> * whitehats should contact vendors and not public forums as only the vendors can
>   release an update.

This is false. In open source, everyone has the chance to produce a patch, and I 
have done it a few times, not being a vendor.
Why contact vendors if you don't like them and their license agreement sux?
You obviously don't like whitehats, but you don't contact whitehats in private 
in order to change them. Same goes in real world, if you don't like politicians 
for example.

georgi