full-disclosure - Third party patches, a matter of trust by n3td3v

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: <4ef5fec60603300440y72c0b1bfpe89474152c67355@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu Mar 30 13:40:29 2006
From: coderman at gmail.com (coderman)
Subject: Third party patches, a matter of trust by n3td3v

On 3/29/06, n3td3v <n3td3v@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Third party patches, a matter of trust
>
> Why are third party patches a bad thing?

they are only a bad thing if they are not trusted and not well tested.

> They force Microsoft to rush out a patch before
> Q.A testing has been fully completed in the time scale
> Microsoft would have initially hoped.

M$ is never forced to do anything.

a short / inadequate test cycle for the third party patch is indeed
something to consider though.  (presumably anyone deploying a third
party patch is also doing much more testing than they would for a M$
tested and sanctioned patch)

> Is it responsible for eEye to release a third party patch before Microsoft?

absolutely.

is it responsible for any system administrator to apply the eEye patch?
that depends on trust and testing... :)