Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 4/14/2014 7:32 AM, Jamie Landeg-Jones wrote:
> >
> > As to the specific question, I don't think his ego would allow a bug
> > in openssh to persist, so even if it does, I'd suspect it's not too
> > serious (or it's non-trivial to exploit), and it's related to FreeBSD
>
It seems like this attitude will provide fuel to the argument that open-source
software is inherently less secure.
I'm surprised that SSH Communications Security hasn't used these posts yet as
an argument to why their product is more secure.
Brandon Vincent
_
>On 4/14/2014 7:32 AM, Jamie Landeg-Jones wrote:
>> Matt Dawson wrote:
>>
>>> My first thought when I saw this was "ego over ethics," which says more
>>> about Theo than FreeBSD.
>>
>> Totally.
>>
>> I know Theo has a reputation for being 'difficult', but in my opinion,
>> this outburst really
On 4/14/2014 7:32 AM, Jamie Landeg-Jones wrote:
> Matt Dawson wrote:
>
>> My first thought when I saw this was "ego over ethics," which says more
>> about Theo than FreeBSD.
>
> Totally.
>
> I know Theo has a reputation for being 'difficult', but in my opinion,
> this outburst really calls into
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 02:11:02 -0500
Bryan Drewery wrote:
> As the maintainer of the port I will say that your security decreases
> with each OPTION/patch you apply. I really would not be surprised if
> one of the optional patches available in the port
