| 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: <200310131617.h9DGHFFS010945@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu) Subject: OT: An odd question that has arrisen within my household On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 07:25:32 PDT, security snot said: > Let me demonstrate the proactive security practices of the OpenBSD team at > it's finest. > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=106523413529618&w=2 > > Must I spell it out for you? Proactively secure! Odd. All I see there is Theo saying that he's deleted the patch and taken control "because it DOES matter", and that the guilty party is free to resubmit the patch *done correctly* (i.e. with all the proper documentation/commentary). And yes, that's being *PRO*actively secure. Theo isn't letting crap into the tree unless there's a proper audit trail and documentation. Yes, there may be some really good reason that the person feels "this fix has to go out RIGHT now", but said person isn't balancing "it can wait 2 frikking hours while the paperwork gets done *right*" and "3 years from now the lack of paperwork will come back and bite them on the collective ass". Yes, Theo can be an abrasive asshole when he wants to. But in the cited article, he's in the right. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 226 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20031013/b09353a8/attachment.bin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists