full-disclosure - Re: verizon vs m$

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]

Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 22:22:42 +0900
From: Dan Kaminsky <dan@...para.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: verizon vs m$

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:12 PM,  <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 07:16:34 EST, Larry Seltzer said:
>> >>> 2. some interpret it as a feature and some as a bug?
>>
>> > Does it have to be either?
>>
>> It sounds to me as if this is a deliberate design decision, and people are
>> disagreeing over the severity of its implications.
>
> Some people refer to that as a "feee-tchure" or "Broken As Designed". It's
> technically not a bug, but it does violate the Principle of Least Surprise.
>
>

To be fair, "Surprise!  Nothing works" would be a little more surprising.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/