On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:19 AM, John Bond <[email protected]> wrote: > What is wrong with this. The code is audited and for all you know any > back door which was placed in this code has been found and fixed. It > would be arrogant and irresponsible for Theo or anyone else to ignore > a claim of this nature, with the stance of we audit everything and > therefore an organisation with an almost unlimited budget couldn't > possibly of sneaked something into an extremely complicated code base > with out us noticing. >
This is not make sense. Is you say: Theo is will never allow backdoor, he is responsible, then is you say "The code is audited and for all you know any back door which was placed in this code has been found and fixed." then is why there is never mention from OpenBSD long time ago: "Is we find backdoor code in audit and fix" is that to me would be responsible. Is you cannot have your sarmale and eat it too. A = Theo is responsible B = OpenBSD is audited C = Theo not know of backdoor Something wrong with this is picture. If is this Theo responsible like you is say, and he is find backdoor long ago, because he is responsible, he should have is said long time ago: "We is find backdooruski and we is fix it!" Otherwise 1) is this theory that OpenBSD is audited is wrong or 2) Theo is know of backdoor and in order is to save his skin is maybe 3) OpenBSD is never no audited like they is claim. Theo просто охватывает его Ass!!! jajajajajajaja _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
