Hi Mathiu, > Apparently. But, as I said, "no reason [...] has ever been mentioned > publicly". > > Looks like SCO claiming that source code has been stolen. Unless > you have an explicit statement, you cannot do anything against that > claim. > > Unless a public claim about Savane security is made, I will not > consider that reason seriously -- because there is no reason to do > otherwise. And if such a claim is made, I expect it to come with > serious arguments, strong enough to justify the desire to spend time > to trash the tool instead of fixing it.
There aren't ( in my opinion ) strong enough comments and arguments to trash Savane ( old Savannah ) and change it with Gforge , and , if somebody says: " Savane is not secure enough" i'll take care of auditing GForge and providing the results publicly , i don't want to do that but , if i can help Savane ( and GNU ) for preventing a false-sense of security i'll do it , GForge shares some of the vulnerable points that Savane has fixed yet because the original code is SF 2.0 . Independant of security risks , Savane is completely developed for provide full quality service, as the service of GNU Savannah , completely pointed at free software projects. > In the meantime, the statement "Savane cannot be made secure enough" > is just totally meaningless. Some people call that FUD, and reasons > that could lead people to spread such FUD remains to be analysed. We need the deoFUDscator v. cvs-20041204. :) Cheers.
