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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <40EAAA3F.6080301@sdf.lonestar.org>
From: bkfsec at sdf.lonestar.org (Barry Fitzgerald)
Subject: Web sites compromised by IIS attack

Maarten wrote:

>On Friday 02 July 2004 23:33, Barry Fitzgerald wrote:
>  
>
>>
>>No, I'm not wrong.
>>
>>The discussion is about who's responsible for support of said software.
>>There's no obligation through the GNU GPL that support is required if
>>money changes hands, however the point of the discussion is who's
>>responsible for support of said software in a situation where the
>>software produced is broken and supported.
>>
>>Red Hat sells support.  The act of taking binaries and actively and
>>intentionally redistributing them is a support service.
>>    
>>
>
>Well that is open to debate.  If I just download Redhat, they make no money 
>off me.  Do they still have to fix my software then ? Are they responsible ?
>  
>

Nope - it's the act of exchanging money for the support contract that 
makes the obligated to provide said support.

             -Barry