On 10/24/12, Samuel Rødal <[email protected]> wrote: > > As far as I see it all the options have vulnerabilities, so it shouldn't > be hard to prove that they exist within either approach. >
Yep. Close one giant security-through-obscurity vulnerability, open the door for script kiddies. It's a trade off, but at least we won't have the ILLUSION OF SECURITY (worse than being insecure) anymore. > > If I get you correctly, you're saying that you want two security mailing > lists, one open and one closed. Others have countered this by saying > that the existing development mailing list will in practice act as the > open one. In what way do you perceive these two options as being > radically different? > Knowledge availability, which I value and I guess others do not? m_ListOfUsersCommentingWithoutFirstReading << "Samuel"; See: http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2012-October/007478.html Duuude, you responded directly to that email too. How the what the I don't even Are you trolling me? d3fault _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
