From owner-freebsd-security Mon Mar 20 13:54:34 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from testbed.baileylink.net (testbed.baileylink.net [63.71.213.24]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C95037B601 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:54:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brad@testbed.baileylink.net) Received: (from brad@localhost) by testbed.baileylink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA83795 for freebsd-security@freebsd.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:55:49 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from brad) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:55:49 -0600 From: Brad Guillory To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports security advisories.. Message-ID: <20000320155548.E59294@baileylink.net> References: <20000320154614.A63670@elvis.mu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000320154614.A63670@elvis.mu.org>; from dave@mu.org on Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 03:46:14PM -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I would like to see them stay. If I have a port installed it is nice to know that SA's regarding that port will come to this list. The bandwidth used is far less than the bandwidth used by people who sign every post that they make. ;-) BMG On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 03:46:14PM -0600, Dave McKay wrote: > Is it really necessary to post the ports security advisories? > The exploitable programs are not part of the FreeBSD OS, they > are third party software. I think the proper place for these > is the Bugtraq mailing list on securityfocus.com. Also to add > to the arguments, most of the advisories are not FreeBSD > specific. > > -- > Dave McKay > Network Engineer - Google Inc. > dave@mu.org - dave@google.com > I'm feeling lucky... -- __O _-\<,_ Why drive when you can bike? (_)/ (_) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message