Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 15:22:10 -0400 From: Larry Sica <lomifeh@earthlink.net> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: Matt Piechota <piechota@argolis.org>, Aaron Namba <aaron@namba1.com>, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is FreeBSD's tar susceptible to this? Message-ID: <150AE1C1-D573-11D6-AD20-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20021001122135.0344e410@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, October 1, 2002, at 02:23 PM, Brett Glass wrote: > At 11:46 AM 10/1/2002, Matt Piechota wrote: > >> Fearing the off-topic avalanche that's going to come of this... >> >> Why the GPL? It would have been just as likely to happen in BSD tar, > > It would be less likely, because the BSDs have more peer review and > more careful auditing. > 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 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?150AE1C1-D573-11D6-AD20-000393A335A2>