Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 14:19:49 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Matt Piechota <piechota@argolis.org>, Aaron Namba <aaron@namba1.com>, <security@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: RE: Is FreeBSD's tar susceptible to this? Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021001141233.036c0b00@localhost> In-Reply-To: <200210011947.g91Jl1sO052241@apollo.backplane.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20021001113225.034331b0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20021001122135.0344e410@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20021001133156.03609ec0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 01:47 PM 10/1/2002, Matthew Dillon wrote: > I seriously doubt anyone would be interested in rolling their own > gnu-compatible tar or adapting an older non-gnu tar to our needs. > People have gotten used to the gnu switches. I seriously doubt anyone would be interested in creating or using an operating system based on BSD. People have gotten used to Linux. :-S Or s/Linux/Windows/ in the above. It's clearly important, from a *security* standpoint (and, yes, this is about security, not just licensing), that there not be a monoculture. > I'm not sure I understand why you are advocating integrating bzip > into tar. Because IPC consumes resources and computing power. Going directly to zlib makes a lot more sense, IMHO. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20021001141233.036c0b00>