Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns

From: Trevor L. Jackson, III (tlj3_at_comcast.net)
Date: 02/01/05

  • Next message: Trevor L. Jackson, III: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns" 
    Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:45:33 -0500

    Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
    > Brian Inglis wrote:
    >
    >> And that if it's non-open-source, there probably is a deliberate
    >> security hole in there for the security establishment. Even if it's
    >> open source, there could be a subtle hole. It must be hard to pretend
    >> to write secure software but ensure that
    >> the spooks can read the product.
    >
    >
    > But why should they? It would be a very bad marketing
    > decision. Witness the flap over the jokingly named
    > "NSAKEY" (which was *not* a back door for NSA).

    And just how is it that you can speak with such authority on this topic?
      You are awfully certain for someone who claims not to be privy to the
    details.

    /tj3

  • Next message: Trevor L. Jackson, III: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns
      ... > security hole in there for the security establishment. ... > Even if it's open source, there could be a subtle hole. ...
      (sci.crypt)
    • Re: French Gov handing out Linux in schools
      ... > no being open source is approximately as effecive as being open source, ... Gartner is not the Gospel. ... You should have been taught from college about peer code review. ... they can verify that it is really a security hole ...
      (alt.computer.security)