full-disclosure - RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding

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: 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