From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Mar 20 15:15:35 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from overcee.netplex.com.au (peter1.yahoo.com [208.48.107.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CCC937BB5A; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:15:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) Received: from netplex.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.netplex.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5AB41CC9; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 23:15:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Dave McKay Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports security advisories.. In-Reply-To: Message from Dave McKay of "Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:46:14 CST." <20000320154614.A63670@elvis.mu.org> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 23:15:28 -0800 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20000321071528.B5AB41CC9@overcee.netplex.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Dave McKay wrote: > Is it really necessary to post the ports security advisories? > The exploitable programs are not part of the FreeBSD OS, they > are third party software. I think the proper place for these > is the Bugtraq mailing list on securityfocus.com. Also to add > to the arguments, most of the advisories are not FreeBSD > specific. Sadly yes, it seems it is. If we get in first, we get to remind people that it's not a standard part of FreeBSD etc. Otherwise people post on bugtraq "security hole in FreeBSD, no public response after a week" style things which do not look good at all. Doing it this way is a bit irritiating but is the least evil of the alternatives. Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message