That should have been "made an identical post".
-Original Message-
From: Chris Eng
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 6:51 PM
To: 'Jim Manico'; SC-L@securecoding.org
Subject: RE: [SC-L] SATE
Jim,
You made an identical to the WASC list, and Vadim Okun from NIST posted a
detailed reply addressi
NIST already responded to my email on a different list. I was impressed
with what they had to say...
**
We have been releasing the real deep data. There have been delays, but there
are no sinister reasons for the delays.
The results of the 2nd SATE (our report and all data) will b
New fuzzing framework released from the folks up at CMU, FYI.
https://www.cert.org/blogs/vuls/2010/05/cert_basic_fuzzing_framework.html
Aloha,
Ken
-
Kenneth R. van Wyk
KRvW Associates, LLC
http://www.KRvW.com
Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/KRvW_Associates
smime.p7s
De
I feel that NIST made a few errors in the first 2 SATE studies.
After the second round of SATE, the results were never fully released to
the public - even when NIST agreed to do just that at the inception of
the contest. I do not understand why SATE censored the final results - I
feel such cen
