[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20030917092043.GA99814@sherlock.clues.com>
From: matt at clues.com (Matt Collins)
Subject: Re: [RHSA-2003:279-01] Updated OpenSSH packages fix potential vulnerability
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 02:08:48PM -0700, kernelclue@...hmail.com wrote:
> OpenSSH runs on a number of platforms, Windows included. To say this
> reflects on GNU/Linux or any Linux distro is just nonsense.
He wasn't. He was suggesting the utility of bug-discussion lists is
reduced by having the same bug reported multiple times by every
vendor out there. It wasnt anything to do with the OpenSSH issue.
I tend to agree - if you want redhat patches subscribe to their security
mailing list. If redhat find a new bug, they of course
should post it to bugtraq, full disclosure, or their communications medium
of choice.
It isnt particularly useful for a cross platform research/discussion list
to be flooded with 7 software release announcements for the same bug,
though. Even if there is an argument that a central clearing house for
patch releases is a useful thing, splitting out 'initial notification'
(this bug exists in funny_mail) from 'patch release' (vendors 1 2 3
4 ... 1000 have a patch for their packaged version of funny_mail!)
makes both lists more readable and more useful.
Such a gain in utility might even increase contribution; if instead of
having to dedicate hours to 'eyeballing' out the repeated messages with
no new information beyond a URL for download of a particular precompiled
patch the list became more useful 'raw' information, it would become
much easier to regularly partake of it.
YMMV of course.
Matt
Powered by blists - more mailing lists