Bugtraq mailing list archives
Re: Security through obscurity, etc.
From: isdmill () gatekeeper ddp state me us (David Miller)
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 09:36:32 -0500 (EST)
On Mon, 12 Dec 1994, Jason Matthews wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 1994, That Whispering Wolf... wrote:
[...]
Well, this is just my $.02. I think if 8lgm continues they way they're going (with things like their SCO 'login' problem -- Which basically said "There's a bug, no fix and no workaround, so nyah"), I'd rather just see them go away. I echo Pat's comments (I think that was Pat) about only needing one CERT.I would rather have 8lgm then CERT. Jason
So would I. And the reason for this is that with 8lgm there is a credible threat for near term disclosure: enough of a threat to force the vendors to react. Reporting bugs to CERT does nothing to motivate vendors. --- David ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's *amazing* what one can accomplish when one doesn't know what one can't do!
Current thread:
- Re: Security through obscurity, etc., (continued)
- Re: Security through obscurity, etc. Jason Matthews (Dec 12)
- Re: Security through obscurity, etc. jsz (Dec 13)
- Re: Security through obscurity, etc. joshua geller (Dec 13)
- No more religious wars please! (was Re: Security through obscurity, Christopher Samuel (Dec 13)
- Re: Security through obscurity, etc. James M. Chacon (Dec 13)
- Re: Security through obscurity, etc. Oliver Friedrichs (Dec 13)
- Re: Security through obscurity, etc. Leo Bicknell (Dec 13)
- Re: Security through obscurity, etc. Oliver Friedrichs (Dec 13)
- Re: Security through obscurity, etc. Jason Matthews (Dec 12)
- Re: Security through obscurity, etc. Jim Littlefield (Dec 14)
- Re: this is interesting... Paul 'Shag' Walmsley (Dec 13)