[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: tcp vulnerability
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: tcp vulnerability
- From: Darren Reed <avalon_(_at_)_caligula_(_dot_)_anu_(_dot_)_edu_(_dot_)_au>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:11:02 +1000 (Australia/ACT)
Ok, I could reply to each point that henning was trying to make
here against what I was saying but that'd be a waste of time and
not achieve much... suffice to say that his view about how openbsd
is the perfect solution is fine if you accept that what openbsd
does fixes the problems that are present.
If, however, you can look at what the problems are and recognise
that the proposed solutions just change the risk and do not
elminate it, then statements such as "openbsd is not vulnerable"
are evangalistic (is this the opposite to FUD?) where the truth
is glossed over in favour of presenting a positive point of view
that portrays your product as perfectly as possible, with the
hope that nobody asks to look at the details.
btw, is there an RFC on FUD spreading?
You seemed to imply that my FUD was not RFC compliant which is
something of a bother because I wasn't aware of any RFCs for FUD.