From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Mar 26 22:58:00 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F252037B404
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:57:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (c18609.belrs1.nsw.optusnet.com.au
	[210.49.80.204])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E51143FAF
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:57:58 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from peterjeremy@optushome.com.au)
Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (localhost.alcatel.com.au
	[127.0.0.1])h2R6vsM2018972;	Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:57:54 +1100 (EST)
	(envelope-from jeremyp@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au)
Received: (from jeremyp@localhost)
	by cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h2R6vqeX018971;
	Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:57:52 +1100 (EST)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:57:52 +1100
From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au>
To: D J Hawkey Jr <hawkeyd@visi.com>
Message-ID: <20030327065752.GA18940@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0303252144400.21019-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net>
	<20030326061041.A17052@sheol.localdomain>
	<20030326071637.A17385@sheol.localdomain> <3E81AF6C.3060705@arnes.si>
	<20030327160638.J1404@gamplex.bde.org>
	<20030326234503.A21679@sheol.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030326234503.A21679@sheol.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-29.3 required=5.0
	tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,
	      USER_AGENT_MUTT
	autolearn=ham	version=2.50
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp)
cc: security at FreeBSD <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: what actually uses xdr_mem.c?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security issues [members-only posting]
	<freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>,
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>,
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:58:01 -0000

On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 11:45:04PM -0600, D J Hawkey Jr wrote:
>Given that it's improbable, if not nearly impossible, to discover what
>statically-linked binaries may be involved with any vulnerability, isn't
>it reasonable to ask if the benefits of statically-linked binaries aren't
>outweighed by the [security] drawbacks?

This particular bikeshed has been discussed to death several times.
I suggest you peruse the archives rather than re-opening it.

Peter