From owner-freebsd-security  Tue Oct  1 13:14:33 2002
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 4147737B401
	for <security@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue,  1 Oct 2002 13:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D776E43E3B
	for <security@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue,  1 Oct 2002 13:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net)
Received: from earthlink.net
 (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147])
 by mtaout01.icomcast.net
 (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 1.4 (built Aug  5 2002))
 with ESMTP id <0H3B00FL7K72UG@mtaout01.icomcast.net> for security@FreeBSD.ORG;
 Tue, 01 Oct 2002 16:13:51 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 16:13:49 -0400
From: Larry Sica <lomifeh@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Is FreeBSD's tar susceptible to this?
In-reply-to: <200210011934.g91JY6OW045102@apollo.backplane.com>
To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Cc: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>,
	Matt Piechota <piechota@argolis.org>, Aaron Namba <aaron@namba1.com>,
	security@FreeBSD.ORG
Message-id: <4C74EABB-D57A-11D6-AD20-000393A335A2@earthlink.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.546)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-security.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-security>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-security>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org


On Tuesday, October 1, 2002, at 03:34 PM, Matthew Dillon wrote:

>
> :This is not because of the BSDL or GPL though.  It is because of the
> :project's makeup.  Politics aside, a license has nothing to do with 
> the
> :quality of the work, or lack thereof.  And many *BSD and BSDL products
> :have had security problems.  Now sure, the zlib problem was avoided.
> :But FreeBSD has had it's own recent spate of problems.  I am not sure
> :this discussion is even appropriate in this forum.  If we are
> :vulnerable it needs to be fixed, period.  Let's not use a security
> :problem for political maneuvering.
> :
> :--Larry
>
>     The zlib problem was not avoided, e.g. 1.5.8.1 of deflate.c (unless
>     you are talking about another one, there were a couple of issues
>     if I recall), but zlib is an excellent example of the sucess of the
>     open-source community grapevine.

I would have to go back and check for the exact one, but I should have 
been clearer, FreeBSD was affected but not as bad as some other OSes.  
Mostly because FreeBSD Did The Right Thing<tm>.  I'll be clearer what I 
mean in the future..


--Larry


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message