Tweet
Three kernel overflows in pf?
I can't find a trace of those online, so you had better have a source for that.
FBI agents...illegally copied GPL code sans copyright notices...to add exploits...with de Raadt's assistance?
Ahem. Someone does not have a clue what their lies mean:
-The original source, who may be unreliable (one alleged accomplice was apparently never associated with the FBI), claims only that FBI agents added exploits.
-If they illegally copied code to add exploits, where are the bugfixes in the Linux kernel? That claim cannot stand without saying that Linux has an open hole in its crypto layer. But the original source said no such thing.
-It's a very strange definition of "assistance" that allows for forwarding a claim before a rebuttal was prepared, that results in an audit conducted by several developers, that finds and closes some different security holes, and concludes with "I believe that NETSEC was probably contracted to write backdoors as alleged...I am happy that people are taking the opportunity to audit an important part of the tree which many had assumed -- for far too long -- to be safe as it is."
So while there may be some truth to two of the four elements of the claim, the two that are relied upon are blatantly inventions of the author of that collection of disinformation more than worthy of SCO.
Anyhow, please excuse me. I probably ought to go check the depth of the farm pond; it's certainly deeper in here.
I can't find a trace of those online, so you had better have a source for that.
FBI agents...illegally copied GPL code sans copyright notices...to add exploits...with de Raadt's assistance?
Ahem. Someone does not have a clue what their lies mean:
-The original source, who may be unreliable (one alleged accomplice was apparently never associated with the FBI), claims only that FBI agents added exploits.
-If they illegally copied code to add exploits, where are the bugfixes in the Linux kernel? That claim cannot stand without saying that Linux has an open hole in its crypto layer. But the original source said no such thing.
-It's a very strange definition of "assistance" that allows for forwarding a claim before a rebuttal was prepared, that results in an audit conducted by several developers, that finds and closes some different security holes, and concludes with "I believe that NETSEC was probably contracted to write backdoors as alleged...I am happy that people are taking the opportunity to audit an important part of the tree which many had assumed -- for far too long -- to be safe as it is."
So while there may be some truth to two of the four elements of the claim, the two that are relied upon are blatantly inventions of the author of that collection of disinformation more than worthy of SCO.
Anyhow, please excuse me. I probably ought to go check the depth of the farm pond; it's certainly deeper in here.
Comment