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: <4068B230.1000106@normanonline.co.uk> From: luke at normanonline.co.uk (Luke Norman) Subject: Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Whilst I can see your point, when you have an exploit for which there is a widely-published vulnerability publicly available, would it not be easier to simply offer the software to those who want it. I know that if the next time an apache vuln came out, I had to contact someone at apache to get them to give me the update so that I could stop my server being vulnerable, I wouldn't be very happy. If there are publicly available exploits, there should be publicly available patches. Luke Clayton Kossmeyer wrote: >The TAC process for this is to direct customers to their ISP for >downloads. The reasons for this are many, but one of the major ones >is that SPs/ISPs want to control what versions of software are >deployed within their networks. > > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists