[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Moving ahead



Let me just clarify that I meant candidates, not issues.

Further, those candidates which I have not commented on to date I
ACCEPT.

Adam


On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 09:58:43AM -0400, Adam Shostack wrote:
| 
| We have disagreement on a few issues; I'll suggest that Steve put
| those forth one at a time for consideration.  I'll also say that to do 
| a proper review job, the list was too long; I didn't start it several
| times because I wanted to go through it in one go, and thus my
| response was delayed.
| 
| In addition, I want to raise three more, now that I've finished
| looking into them.
| 
| CAN-1999-0014 we have insufficient data if a new CDE dtappgather bug
| comes out to determine if its new or a re-invention. (REJECT)
| 
| CAN-1999-0032 the mention of (lp) is misleading.  The problem was with 
| the BSD lpr family, not the SYSV lp family.  (MODIFY)
| 
| CAN-1999-0099 the problem was demonstrated publicly through sendmail,
| there is no reason to expect it could not be used through another
| program.  Suggest phrasing:  "A buffer overflow in syslog which was
| demonstrably exploitable via sendmail."  (MODIFY)
| 

 
Page Last Updated: May 22, 2007