On Jan 01 13:46:20, mle...@mega-nerd.com wrote: > I also notice that on sourceforge: > https://sourceforge.net/projects/flac/files/flac-win/ > there are still 1000+ downloads per week 1.2.1 windows binaries > with know security holes.
Does that mean the windows binaries, specifically, do contain the bug, but 1.2.1 as such does not? > What do people think of the idea of > disabling downloads of old, known buggy Windows binary downlaods? Removing old releases is pointless. What's there to gain by doing that? On Dec 31 19:04:08, bri...@audiobanshee.com wrote: > To put this another way, why not leave the 1.2.1 binaries available on > a secondary web page dedicated to legacy operating systems? Please don't. Why complicate things by maintaining another webpage, and for what? On Jan 01 10:54:21, lvqcl.m...@gmail.com wrote: > FLAC 1.2.1 is the last version that works on Win95/98/NT4/2000 Running a buggy FLAC 1.2.1 is imho the least security problem for people running Win 95. _______________________________________________ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev