RE: small summary and big plea was:(Re: [Zope-dev] Versions: should they die?)

2003-06-10 Thread Brian Lloyd
w.zope.com > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf > Of Oliver Bleutgen > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 7:35 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: small summary and big plea was:(Re: [Zope-dev] Versions: > should they die?) >

Re: small summary and big plea was:(Re: [Zope-dev] Versions: should they die?)

2003-06-10 Thread Jamie Heilman
Toby Dickenson wrote: > No criticism was implied public exploits are valuable part of > the security process. Its nice to hear not everyone in the industry has lost their mind. /me glances at redmond -- Jamie Heilman http://audible.transient.net/~jamie/ "We must be born wit

Re: small summary and big plea was:(Re: [Zope-dev] Versions: should they die?)

2003-06-10 Thread Toby Dickenson
On Tuesday 10 June 2003 09:32, Jamie Heilman wrote: > Toby Dickenson wrote: > > ! # Disable nasty insecure version support. Thanks to > > ! # Jamie Heilman and everyone one zope-dev > > Unless you're damning me with faint praise for posting an exploit, > (which is fine) No criticis

Re: small summary and big plea was:(Re: [Zope-dev] Versions: should they die?)

2003-06-10 Thread Jamie Heilman
Toby Dickenson wrote: > ! # Disable nasty insecure version support. Thanks to > ! # Jamie Heilman and everyone one zope-dev Unless you're damning me with faint praise for posting an exploit, (which is fine) this issue was found by Oliver, not me. -- Jamie Heilman

Re: small summary and big plea was:(Re: [Zope-dev] Versions: should they die?)

2003-06-10 Thread Toby Dickenson
On Friday 06 June 2003 21:28, Jamie Heilman wrote: > Quick way to add 100 zodb connections and ~90M to the memory footprint > with relatively little clue of who is responsible assuming traditional > logging; presumeably one would get much trickier if they really wanted > to obfuscate the source of

Re: small summary and big plea was:(Re: [Zope-dev] Versions: should they die?)

2003-06-06 Thread Jamie Heilman
Oliver Bleutgen wrote: > 2. Zope doesn't care if a correspondending Version instance to the value > of REQUEST['Zope-Version'] exists, more exactly, zope doesn't care for > the value of that Zope-Version variable at all. Hmm, it doesn't care, but it does store it in memory. Pardon my fugly non-

Re: small summary and big plea was:(Re: [Zope-dev] Versions: should they die?)

2003-06-06 Thread Toby Dickenson
On Friday 06 June 2003 15:04, Shane Hathaway wrote: > I think 2.6 ought to fix this by disabling recognition of the > Zope-Version cookie Setting this individually for each http port would better support existing happy users of this feature. (Im sure there must be some ;-) Being able to set up

Re: small summary and big plea was:(Re: [Zope-dev] Versions: should they die?)

2003-06-06 Thread Casey Duncan
One man's opinion: - Version support (at the application level) should be optional in 2.7. You should be able to turn it off (maybe through ZConfig). The default should probably be off, since I think more people avoid them than use them. I would suggest these approaches: 1: File a bug in the c