Security quotes of the week [LWN.net]

Security quotes of the week

Posted Sep 19, 2021 9:21 UTC (Sun) by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
In reply to: Security quotes of the week by jebba
Parent article: Security quotes of the week

Because the original LWN article is five years old?

And I hate to say it. but digging through OLD articles, and waking them up, and commenting on them, is a pain in the neck!

Or do you want LWN to pick a random date, say six months, and block comments on all articles older than that? You're making work for other people. That doesn't go down well in the Free Software world.

As they say, hindsight is 100%. As the N in LWN stands for News, please don't drag Olds into current discussion, confusing the hell out of everyone. I guess most people won't even *see* your comments, guests won't stumble across them, higher level subscribers will have blocked you. I'm tempted to do the same, but I don't donate enough to have that facility ... maybe I should ...

Cheers,
Wol

to post comments

Security quotes of the week

Posted Sep 19, 2021 14:11 UTC (Sun) by jebba (guest, #4439) [Link] (2 responses)

So you think there shouldn't be updates to the story? They should just leave it at what Paul Vixie said and not update with new information now that we know he's lying? If there was a new article about it, I would comment about it there, but there isn't one. Why aren't the new developments in the story "News"?

Security quotes of the week

Posted Sep 19, 2021 17:15 UTC (Sun) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

Well, reading the story, I can't see anything Paul Vixie said that he could be accused of lying.

About all the article credits him with saying is "this looks like a real conversation with real people". And the article goes on about "circumstantial evidence but no smoking gun". There's nothing impeachable in that.

If you're going to accuse someone of serious lying, you need better evidence than that!

Cheers,
Wol

Security quotes of the week

Posted Sep 19, 2021 17:22 UTC (Sun) by jebba (guest, #4439) [Link]

This is what LWN wrote above quoting Paul Vixie, on this very page:

> "The parties were communicating in a secretive fashion. The operative word is secretive. This is more akin to what criminal syndicates do if they are putting together a project.”

Back in the day, I was wondering how on earth one could come to this conclusion based on DNS root server logs. Can you explain that? What logs entries would allow someone to make that claim? And now we know why the claim was made. It wasn't tech, it was a political setup from the beginning.

This may be "old", but the new information, to me, makes it relevant. Julian Assange sits in the harshest prison in the UK, often in solitary confinement, because of all this. The more light shed on it, the better.