On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 11:53:04AM -0600, Gadi Evron wrote: > On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > Sendmail is, as we know, the most used daemon for SMTP in the world. This > > > is an International Infrastructure vulnerability and should have been > > > treated that way. It wasn't. It was handled not only poorly, but > > > irresponsibly. > > > > You would probably expect me to the be last person to say that Sendmail > > is perfectly within their rights. I have had a lot of problems with > > what they are doing. > > > > But what did you pay for Sendmail? Was it a dollar, or was it more? Let > > me guess. It was much less than a dollar. I bet you paid nothing. > > > > So does anyone owe you anything, let alone a particular process which > > you demand with such length? > > So you are basically saying open source free software can't be trusted to > hold high standards or be reliable or secure if I don't pay for it? >
Uhh.... I think the point is (and the one that I live by) that if it is not supported, then it cannot maintain high standards of security and reliability. > > > > > Now, the same holds true with OpenSSH. I'll tell you what. If there > > is ever a security problem (again :) in OpenSSH we will disclose it > > exactly like we want, and in no other way, and quite frankly since > > noone has ever paid a cent for it's development they have nothing they > > can say about it. > > > > Dear non-paying user -- please remember your place. > > > > Or run something else. > > > > OK? > > > > Luckily within a few months you will be able to tell Sendmail how > > to disclose their bugs because their next version is going to come > > out with a much more commercial licence. Then you can pay for it, > > and then you can complain too. > > > _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
