[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: [RHSA-2003:279-01] Updated OpenSSH packages fix potential vulnerability
- To: kernelclue@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: [RHSA-2003:279-01] Updated OpenSSH packages fix potential vulnerability
- From: Matt Collins <matt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:20:43 +0100
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 02:08:48PM -0700, kernelclue@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> OpenSSH runs on a number of platforms, Windows included. To say this
> reflects on GNU/Linux or any Linux distro is just nonsense.
He wasn't. He was suggesting the utility of bug-discussion lists is
reduced by having the same bug reported multiple times by every
vendor out there. It wasnt anything to do with the OpenSSH issue.
I tend to agree - if you want redhat patches subscribe to their security
mailing list. If redhat find a new bug, they of course
should post it to bugtraq, full disclosure, or their communications medium
of choice.
It isnt particularly useful for a cross platform research/discussion list
to be flooded with 7 software release announcements for the same bug,
though. Even if there is an argument that a central clearing house for
patch releases is a useful thing, splitting out 'initial notification'
(this bug exists in funny_mail) from 'patch release' (vendors 1 2 3
4 ... 1000 have a patch for their packaged version of funny_mail!)
makes both lists more readable and more useful.
Such a gain in utility might even increase contribution; if instead of
having to dedicate hours to 'eyeballing' out the repeated messages with
no new information beyond a URL for download of a particular precompiled
patch the list became more useful 'raw' information, it would become
much easier to regularly partake of it.
YMMV of course.
Matt
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html