From owner-freebsd-security Mon Aug 9 22:45:48 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2FD5150FF for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 22:44:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by rover.village.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA15476; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 23:43:22 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id XAA10334; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 23:43:29 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199908100543.XAA10334@harmony.village.org> To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Cc: 0x1c Subject: Re: auditors Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1999 23:43:29 -0600 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org [[ Sorry I missed this before, it has just been pointed out to me ]] On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, 0x1c wrote: > Well, fixes can be submitted, but it's no use unless they are implemented. > A large number of OpenBSD patches/fixes implement non-standard behaviour, > which often appear to be frowned upon by committers. At minimum these > should be considered if an option is given to revert to the historical > behaviour. I'm aware of a couple of very specific instances where the is the case (for example, the latest restriction to root of setting flags on files is different than historical behavior), but as a general rule this isn't the case. Can you be more specific? I don't think that the facts support this assertion... Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message