Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 21:45:50 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "Vladimir Mencl, MK, susSED" <mencl@nenya.ms.mff.cuni.cz>, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: suidperl exploit Message-ID: <200008110345.VAA31632@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:38:25 PDT." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0008102034410.95874-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0008102034410.95874-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0008102034410.95874-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> Kris Kennaway writes: : Non-vulnerability alerts like some of the Linux vendors have started : issuing are stupid. If there's no problem, there's no problem, and as long : as you provide a reliable service when there *are* problems, there's no : need to publicize the negative result. The few people who have heard about : it through other channels and want specific reassurance can easily be : accomodated individually through other means (e.g. this list) with much : less effort and without the confusion from people who misinterpet the : contents of the "advisory" as meaning they have to take some action. Yes. I agree completely. If that load gets too high, then we can put up an notice on a web site. Such notice might not be a bad idea anyway, but we don't have a good mechanism for that. It also would artificially bloat the advisory numbers in bugtraq too, which we wouldn't want to do. We want to spend those chits on real problems. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200008110345.VAA31632>