[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20030902174258.GB409@sentinelchicken.org>
From: tim-security at sentinelchicken.org (Tim)
Subject: New Microsoft Internet Explorer mshtml.dll Denial of Service?
> Even more interesting:
> Received: from netsys.com (NETSYS.COM [199.201.233.10])
> by phxby.engr.usu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A3F11443EF
> for <irwanhadi@...by.engr.usu.edu>; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 02:44:14
> -0600 (MDT)
> Received: from NETSYS.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> by netsys.com (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h827wOx20101;
> Tue, 2 Sep 2003 03:58:24 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from phxby.engr.usu.edu (phxby.engr.usu.edu [129.123.21.101])
> by netsys.com (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h827uUE19665
> for <full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com>; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 03:56:30
> -0400 (EDT)
> Received: by phxby.engr.usu.edu (Postfix, from userid 501)
> id 6607B14438C; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 01:56:24 -0600 (MDT)
>
> I believe that for infosec stuffs, the faster information being
> distributed/sent is the better. Late putting patch just because the
> information come almost 1 hour later after it is sent might be
> catastropic.
I don't know about catastrophic, but it certainly should be faster. I
personally find the speed of this list unacceptable. For large lists
with high volume, a list server written in a scripting language like
python isn't going to cut it, IMHO. I vote for qmail w/ ezmlm(-idx).
(That is, if we get a vote in the matter.)
tim
Powered by blists - more mailing lists