full-disclosure - Web sites compromised by IIS attack

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0407011953470.1120-100000@server.dimick.net>
From: denis at dimick.net (Denis Dimick)
Subject: Web sites compromised by IIS attack

Barry,

I have to agree with you one once a company changes the code then they own 
it. However wrapping the same old software in an RPM to me does not change 
it enough to have "someone" else own the code.

I do find it "funny" that sendmail and BIND have been thrown out in the 
e-mails (don't think it was you) But these two applications are some of 
the most buggy bits of code ever written.

There are far better aplications out there if someone want to run a mail 
or dns server if you ask me. 

Denis 

On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Barry Fitzgerald wrote:

> Denis Dimick wrote:
> 
> >Did M$ write ftp.exe? If so then they "own" it, they own the sources and 
> >all rights to the code. Redhat owns very little of the code you get on 
> >there CD.
> >
> >Denis
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> I think that the demarcation line for this is where money changed hands.
> 
> First of all, ftp.exe is a common example because the ftp.exe that MS 
> has traditionally included with various versions of windows has text 
> data in it's binary that's part of the BSD license.  So, ftp.exe is 
> "borrowed" code, so to speak.
> 
> First, I'm all for Free Software businesses (anyone who knows me knows 
> this).  But, once a company chooses to redistribute Free Software code, 
> they "own" it for all intents and purposes.  The original authors aren't 
> responsible for it because distributions can (and in many cases do) 
> modify the code before they redistribute it.
> 
> Red Hat takes the money, they get the burden of support.  That's the way 
> the model works.  :)
> 
>              -Barry
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
>