From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 16 23:00:53 2004 Return-Path: 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 3339A16A4CE for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:00:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from cowbert.2y.net (d46h180.public.uconn.edu [137.99.46.180]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A86E643D31 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:00:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sirmoo@cowbert.2y.net) Received: (qmail 92167 invoked by uid 1001); 17 Mar 2004 07:00:51 -0000 Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 02:00:51 -0500 From: "Peter C. Lai" To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20040317070051.GC716@cowbert.2y.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: portaudit X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Security issues [members-only posting] List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 07:00:53 -0000 Any reason why portaudit and its associated infrastructure was not announced to this list or security-notifications? I recently discovered it, and discovered the feature was added to bsd.port.mk in the beginning of feburary. Seeing as the security officer apparently (without announcement) no longer issues security notices (SNs) for ports, I am assuming that portaudit has replaced SNs entirely, and that we should rely on that for ports operational security? I'm not subscribed to -ports, -questions, or -current, which were apparently where the portaudit introduction discussions took place. -- Peter C. Lai University of Connecticut Dept. of Molecular and Cell Biology Yale University School of Medicine SenseLab | Research Assistant http://cowbert.2y.net/