From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 15 16:05:46 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81A2A1065693 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:05:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rfarmer@predatorlabs.net) Received: from mail-qy0-f182.google.com (mail-qy0-f182.google.com [209.85.216.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 441F68FC12 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:05:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qyk36 with SMTP id 36so2038396qyk.13 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:05:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.75.8 with SMTP id w8mr626005qcj.94.1292429145396; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:05:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.59.69 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:05:45 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [128.95.133.99] In-Reply-To: <19720.57471.684530.72355@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <4d08a854.w8rPywliRhHs/MXH%akosela@andykosela.com> <19720.57471.684530.72355@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:05:45 -0800 Message-ID: From: Rob Farmer To: Garrett Wollman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Allegations regarding OpenBSD IPSEC X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:05:46 -0000 On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 07:36, Garrett Wollman wrote: > < said: > >> If his allegations are correct, they should be easy to verify. He >> could post a copy of the NDA and a Freedom of Information Act request >> could be submitted to verify it. If, as claimed, the NDA expired and >> this can be discussed freely by the general public, then they would >> not be able to deny the request. > > Actually, they would, because it would fall under the "internal > personnel matter" exemption from FOIA. > > -GAWollman > I'm not a lawyer, but couldn't he exempt himself and they black out the other people's names? If he could provide some evidence that this isn't a publicity stunt and interest a major media organization or a civil rights group (like the ACLU or EFF), I suspect they could apply enough political and legal pressure to avoid getting brushed off. Besides, if this were legitimate, it could benefit the Democrats (given that it supposedly occurred during the Bush administration), so how hard would they really fight it? -- Rob Farmer