Re: Full Disclosure works, here's proof:

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Bela Lubkin: "Re: Full Disclosure works, here's proof:"
• Previous message: Bela Lubkin: "Re: pt_chmod"
• In reply to: Bela Lubkin: "Re: Full Disclosure works, here's proof:"
• Next in thread: Paul 'Shag' Walmsley: "Re: Full Disclosure works, here's proof:"

> 
> Christopher Klaus wrote:
> 
> > I think I would take the time to install a patch that has been fully
> > disclosed and know that most no-brain wannabe hackers are going to be
> > trying it on my system, versus a patch that fixes a problem that only SCO
> > and CERT know about and I will probably never have a problem with. 
> 
> This is ridiculous.  You'd decline to install a security patch because
> you think not enough hackers know about the hole?
> 
> >Bela<

One important point is, if you dont know what the hole is, you cant be sure
its fixed.  Some people are more reluctant to take these things on trust,
after seeing what happened with Sun's binmail patches.
------------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
Mailed using ELM on FreeBSD               |                    Karl Strickland
PGP 2.3a Public Key Available.            | Internet: karl@bagpuss.demon.co.uk
                                          |

• Next message: Bela Lubkin: "Re: Full Disclosure works, here's proof:"
• Previous message: Bela Lubkin: "Re: pt_chmod"
• In reply to: Bela Lubkin: "Re: Full Disclosure works, here's proof:"
• Next in thread: Paul 'Shag' Walmsley: "Re: Full Disclosure works, here's proof:"