Re: [debian-devel] Status of mICQ code audit
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 07:25, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> I wouldn't call it malicious, but I question the use of the word "harmful".
> It should have been replaced, attributed or removed. I wondered about it
> at the time but didn't comment as the article had already been released.
> But maybe it can still be updated (just the web version?)? I've cc'd the
> DWN to see if this is possible.
I oppose this. Changes to a magazine or newspaper are performed by printing a
correction or retraction in a later issue, not by attempting to un-publish
the article in question.
If there is a consensus of opinion that the current article in DWN about this
is lacking in some way then another article should be published with further
information.
> I wouldn't call disabling the use of the program and telling the user why
> harmful.
Harmful to Debian even if possibly not harmful to the user. This could be
clarified in the next DWN article on the topic (now that Rudi has started the
debate again another DWN article is probably due anyway).
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: