On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 03:59:46PM +0100, Tomas Groth wrote:
--- Rob Savoye [EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
So, rationale is:
- use 'whitelist' if you want to DENY by default
- use 'blacklist' if you want to ACCEPT by default
This is reversed. A Blacklist denys access, and a
--- strk [EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 03:20:36PM +0100, Tomas Groth wrote:
So, rationale is:
- use 'whitelist' if you want to DENY by default
- use 'blacklist' if you want to ACCEPT by default
This seems logical to me, so fine by me :)
I was thinking
On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 08:33:21AM -0700, Rob Savoye wrote:
strk wrote:
This reminds me of a current problem in gnash... We feed the
standalon player with the movie from stdin, so whitelist/blacklist
has NO effect on top-level movie. I didn't verify this but I suppose
no load of
strk wrote:
This reminds me of a current problem in gnash... We feed the
standalon player with the movie from stdin, so whitelist/blacklist
has NO effect on top-level movie. I didn't verify this but I suppose
no load of toplevel movie will currently be blocked. Should test
I think this is
I've started using .gnashrc and found a conceptual limit in
secirity specification.
We have a whitelist and a blacklist, but the default is always
to grant access, so what's the point of a whitelist ?
Should we consider a 'non-existent' whitelist as a default policy
of *GRANT* and existenc of it
5 matches
Mail list logo
