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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <000601c306b6$01cad370$6d00a8c0@RANDALL.local> From: purdy at tecman.com (Curt Purdy) Subject: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding The difference is quite clear, Theo is an individual and entitled to his own policitical views whether the President of the United States agrees with them or not. DARPA is a government agency and has no right to any political view. By definition an agency is created to fullfill its charter, in DARPA's case to promote advanced research in the US government's best interests, which a secure network OS clearly is. The charter mentions nothing about Democratic, Replubican, Anarchist, war, or peace political views. Curt -----Original Message----- From: full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com [mailto:full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com]On Behalf Of Paul Schmehl Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2003 11:22 AM To: Curt Purdy; jasonc@...ence.org; 'InfoSec News'; isn@...rition.org Cc: wk@....org; full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding Somehow I think Theo will find some way to get the project done. He was doing fine before the DARPA project. I do find it interesting that you characterize Theo as "expressing his views" yet you characterize DARPA as "politicizing a technical project". Weren't they both doing the same thing? Why the difference in the characterization? --On Saturday, April 19, 2003 09:10:53 AM -0500 Curt Purdy <purdy@...man.com> wrote: > Unfortunately, one of the things that seems to have been overlooked in > this political discussion, which I believe does not have a place in this > technical forum, is that a great and sorely needed project is in jeopardy. > OpenBSD is generally considered one of the most secure network operating > systems available today, and that is even before the recent announcement > of the new resistance, if not vulnerability to buffer overflows which can > be considered the holy grail of programming. > > Whether you feel da Raadt was wrong for expressing his views on peace, or > that DARPA was wrong for politicizing a technical project, the point here > should be that the entire technical world is the loser... Paul Schmehl (pauls@...allas.edu) Adjunct Information Security Officer The University of Texas at Dallas AVIEN Founding Member http://www.utdallas.edu _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists