From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 1 00:40:04 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 635DC106568B for ; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 00:40:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from david@catwhisker.org) Received: from bunrab.catwhisker.org (adsl-63-193-123-122.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.193.123.122]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3493D8FC0A for ; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 00:40:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bunrab.catwhisker.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bunrab.catwhisker.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id o110e3Pa016872; Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:40:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from david@bunrab.catwhisker.org) Received: (from david@localhost) by bunrab.catwhisker.org (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id o110e3l1016871; Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:40:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from david) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:40:03 -0800 From: David Wolfskill To: Dmitry Morozovsky Message-ID: <20100201004003.GE12157@bunrab.catwhisker.org> Mail-Followup-To: David Wolfskill , Dmitry Morozovsky , freebsd-security@freebsd.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Q8BnQc91gJZX4vDc" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: security scripts diff 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: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 00:40:04 -0000 --Q8BnQc91gJZX4vDc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 03:13:39AM +0300, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote: > Dear colleagues, >=20 > looking at regular security mails I found that foloowing patch would grea= tly=20 > desreases amount of false positive reports; it's totally possible I'm mis= sing=20 > some vital areas, but my current look at security scripts did not reveal = any. >=20 > What do you think? Thank you in advance. > ... I think maybe -b ("Ignore changes in the amount of white space.") might be better than -w ("Ignore all white space."), as the presence or absence of *some* white space can be a signifant difference (e.g., to a non-FORTRAN IV parser). = =20 Peace, = =20 david = =20 --=20 David H. Wolfskill david@catwhisker.org Depriving a girl or boy of an opportunity for education is evil. See http://www.catwhisker.org/~david/publickey.gpg for my public key. --Q8BnQc91gJZX4vDc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAktmIuIACgkQmprOCmdXAD1feQCeMeOiFninPLwayWXVpOFE8UEm LygAn0dPlrswgjgrJxm31Qq0zSvGmq3g =n+/P -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Q8BnQc91gJZX4vDc--