ביום חמישי, 15 באפריל 2004, 00:28, נכתב על ידי Shachar Shemesh:
> not being exactly anything else. Closest I can offer is that it's
> pronounced like the "ch" in "Technology".
שה'קר
well i still pronounce "ch" as in sandwitch, as Spanish grammer tells me to :)
--
diego, kde-il translation te
Diego Iastrubni wrote:
ביום רביעי, 14 באפריל 2004, 12:38, נכתב על ידי Gilad Ben-Yossef:
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 12:18, Diego Iastrubni wrote:
you said it yourself, you cannot fully trust something you did not write
yourelf 100% (HW+compiler).
Actually, even trusting yourself is n
ביום רביעי, 14 באפריל 2004, 12:38, נכתב על ידי Gilad Ben-Yossef:
> On Wednesday 14 April 2004 12:18, Diego Iastrubni wrote:
> > you said it yourself, you cannot fully trust something you did not write
> > yourelf 100% (HW+compiler).
>
> Actually, even trusting yourself is not good enough - how do y
Shlomi Fish wrote:
Just a small amount of trivia, induced by what was probably a simple typo.
And a bit in-accurate. Nice try to compress it all into 4 paragprahs,
but people should better read the refference you give before they relay
on it.
(what made me jump was that I explictly remember writin
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 April 2004 12:51, Jonathan Ben Avraham wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> > > The original speaker was trying to bash Linux/FOSS by saying that
> > > you can't trust the code put into it.
[snip]
> > I suspect t
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 12:51, Jonathan Ben Avraham wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > > There are other parts of hardware. For instance: assume that the disc
> > > controller has some idle time. Make it search for a pattern of the
> > > login bina
Jonathan Ben Avraham wrote:
> I suspect that the story is based on a short-lived Unix version, and that
> when Ken Thompson "admitted" this after fourteen years, the affected code
> was probably not in use for 13 years except on some legacy PDP 10 machines
> at Bell labs.
It also assumes that no
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > There are other parts of hardware. For instance: assume that the disc
> > controller has some idle time. Make it search for a pattern of the login
> > binary of a certain distro and change it a bit.
> >
> > Filesystem reading
Diego Iastrubni wrote:
old... read also this:
http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/
ביום רביעי, 14 באפריל 2004, 08:52, נכתב על ידי Yedidyah Bar-David:
Not that I undermine Thompson's point - it's a well-written article that
I recommend to anyone. But this has nothing to do with FOSS or not FOSS.
yo
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 12:18, Diego Iastrubni wrote:
> you said it yourself, you cannot fully trust something you did not write
> yourelf 100% (HW+compiler).
Actually, even trusting yourself is not good enough - how do you know the Men
In Black(TM) did not hypnotically plant an unconscious c
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
There are other parts of hardware. For instance: assume that the disc
controller has some idle time. Make it search for a pattern of the login
binary of a certain distro and change it a bit.
Filesystem reading code is not very large: try grub.
Some disk controllers can be upda
old... read also this:
http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/
ביום רביעי, 14 באפריל 2004, 08:52, נכתב על ידי Yedidyah Bar-David:
> Not that I undermine Thompson's point - it's a well-written article that
> I recommend to anyone. But this has nothing to do with FOSS or not FOSS.
you said it yourself,
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php?id=1224882570&eid=-219:
>
> In a speech intended to serve us a wake-up call to anyone relying on the
> "many eyes" that look at the Linux source code to quickly find any
> subversions, the CEO of Green Hills S
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 10:26:55AM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Yedidyah Bar-David wrote:
> 2. Compile GCC on a Sun Solaris using the Forte compiler. Take the
> resulting binary, and use it to cross compile GCC for Linux. To be
> insecure you now require that Forte have the backdoor to GCC 3.3
While I basically agree with your analysis, in particular to the
conclusion part, and while I did not seriously intend to make people
start making their own CPUs, I do not completely agree with some details.
I do not believe gcc was ever bootstrapped. I am pretty much sure it was
cross-compiled, pr
Yedidyah Bar-David wrote:
The only way to have a really secure system is to make it *all*
by yourself - the CPU, the rest of the hardware, the assembler, compiler,
and the rest of the software.
Sure, sure. The thing is, what happens if you want to make 100% - 10E-15
secure (14 nines)? What if you
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 08:18:24AM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php?id=1224882570&eid=-219:
>
> In a speech intended to serve us a wake-up call to anyone relying on the
> "many eyes" that look at the Linux source code to quickly find any
> subversions,
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php?id=1224882570&eid=-219:
In a speech intended to serve us a wake-up call to anyone relying on the
"many eyes" that look at the Linux source code to quickly find any
subversions, the CEO of Green Hills Software Inc. last week reminded his
audience how Uni
18 matches
Mail list logo
