Re: so_rules broken makefile or bad tarball

[Jeff Nathan <jeff () snort org>]

Brian,

Thanks for getting back to me.

I spoke with some of your associates about it offline and the issue of
some rules not being released in open source form is understandable
due to contractual agreements.

And, since this is stated at the top of the README in the so_rules/src
, it seems as though VRT has tried to documented this, I just
overlooked it.

Ciao,

-Jeff



















On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Brian Caswell <bmc () sourcefire com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Jeff Nathan <jeff () snort org> wrote:
> > Am I missing something or are the tarballs missing files and/or the
> > Makefiles broken?
>
> The tarballs are missing files, but this is as designed.  We ship the
> Makefile used to build the shared objects included in the released
> packages.  Due to contractual obligations on vulnerability detail
> disclosure, some of the C files are stripped out of the distribution
> prior to release.  You are experiencing a byproduct  of all of the C
> files of a specific rule category, web-activex in the case, having
> release restrictions.
>
> This issue has been noted before and is not optimal.  A more optimal
> solution is in the works, but I have no ETA at this time.
>
> Brian

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation
Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business
Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts
Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com
_______________________________________________
Snort-devel mailing list
Snort-devel () lists sourceforge net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-devel