
simons at cryp
Nov 9, 2004, 6:21 PM
Post #1 of 14
(1007 views)
Permalink
|
|
Out of air (was: Let's blow the whistle)
|
|
A day ago I wrote: > At 2004-11-11 00:00:00 CET this article hits a rather > popular public full-disclosure mailing list. The problem with making predictions about by when you'll have finished something is that you are always wrong. This is no exception. So please don't be surprised if it won't be _exactly_ midnight. :-) I figured I'd better say it now to avoid receiving lots of e-mails from people telling me that I wouldn't know what time zone CET is. Anyway, since there is apparently no more need to discuss this problem with the "community" -- or at least not on this mailing list --, I'd like to take the liberty of adding a few short closing remarks concerning this whole issue. By now I have stopped counting the number of people who have called me a public stink, a troublemaker, and whatnot else. To those who have, I'd like to suggest that you check out a medieval concept called "hang the messenger". You are misunderstanding something. Not the people who draw attention to a vulnerability are causing trouble, the _vulnerability_ is causing trouble. So instead of attacking those who are concerned about the lack of authentication in Gentoo's distribution process, you should, well, fix the lack of authentication in Gentoo's distribution process. I wouldn't have thought it was possible, but apparently some people really need that spelled out for them. Furthermore, several people have complained that I would be too confrontational and that I should phrase my messages more politely if I wanted something to happen about this. Here is a nice analogy that IMHO puts that into perspective: You are a car manufacturer and you receive a phone call from someone who informs you that the breaks in your latest model have a design flaw that may result in them failing, thus potentially killing all passengers. And the person who reports this is really, really rude. Does that mean you shouldn't fix you breaks? Oh, and if you think about blowing up on me now because I implied that the Gentoo developers didn't care about security: You should really work on your reading comprehension. The reason why I am being confrontational is that if I hadn't been, NOTHING WOULD HAVE HAPPENED! Oh, and if you think about blowing up on me know because that would not be true ... then you might want to check the date of the first time this problem was reported. Last but not least I cannot help but notice a curious asymmetry in the way security issues are handled by Gentoo. It appears that the Gentoo developers are a lot more forthcoming when it comes to pointing out and fixing security vulnerabilities in upstream packages (a.k.a. _other_ people's code) than they are when it comes to admitting to and fixing problems in their own code. Oh -- you knew this were coming, right? --, if you think about blowing up on me know because I just implied that some people on this mailing list have a MASSIVE ego problem ... then go ahead. I did. Having properly antagonized everyone, there remains nothing left to say. So I'll let some other people speak the last words. Really, this whole thread has been a diamond mine for quotes to be readily used on all kinds of occasions. Here are my personal favorites: | I explicitly said that signing should be implemented! I | only disagree with the statement that it is a strong | security measure or that it's lack is a great danger to | Gentoo users. -- Marc Ballarin <Ballarin.Marc [at] gmx> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.security/1727 | I wouldn't waste [my time] hypothesizing about a man in | the middle attack. While MOTM attacks are theoretically | possible on many many protocols, they are *not* a | serious threat [...]. -- Brian G. Peterson <brian [at] braverock> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.security/1771 Peter -- gentoo-security [at] gentoo mailing list
|