full-disclosure - OT: An odd question that has arrisen within my household

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: 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