Re: Coverity Open Source Defect Scan of Ethereal
[Posted March 14, 2006 by corbet]
| From: |
| Andrew Hood <ajhood-AT-fl.net.au> |
| To: |
| Ethereal development <ethereal-dev-AT-ethereal.com> |
| Subject: |
| Re: Coverity Open Source Defect Scan of Ethereal |
| Date: |
| Tue, 07 Mar 2006 08:20:26 +1100 |
| Archive-link: |
| Article,
Thread
|
Gerald Combs wrote:
> Andreas Sikkema quoted from http://lwn.net/Articles/174426/ :
>
>
>>"On the other hand, ethereal shows a very low defect rate, which can be
>>hard to square with the long list of security advisories from that
>>project."
>
>
> <rant>
> How is this hard to square? I (and others) have been busting our
> collective asses over the past year or so to find and fix security
> defects in Ethereal. Both the low defect rate _and_ the long list of
> advisories are a direct result of this. Sheesh.
> </rant>
Cool down Gerald. The article reads as if it was written by an amateur,
not a professional with a proper grasp of sentence structure.
Would you rather take the M$ path? Not admit to defects until they get
exploited? :-)
--
There's no point in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes.
-- Dr. Who
(
Log in to post comments)