On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Richard Levitte <levi...@openssl.org> wrote: > In message <rt-4.0.19-1915-1458428897-111.4451-...@openssl.org> on Sat, 19 > Mar 2016 23:08:17 +0000, "noloa...@gmail.com via RT" <r...@openssl.org> said: > > rt> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Richard Levitte via RT > <r...@openssl.org> wrote: > rt> > I think that's a discussion that deserves its own new thread on > openssl-dev. > rt> > > rt> > A RT ticket is *not* the right place for a philosophical discussion. > Closing > rt> > this. Please don't respond on this message, create a new thread instead. > rt> > rt> Thanks Richard. > rt> > rt> For me, its not open for debate. Its a point of data egress, so it > rt> must not occur. What others do is there business. > rt> > rt> I'll configure without the "data loss" feature, and others can do what > rt> they want :) > > Well, how about you go after the calls then. Complaining about the > existence of OPENSSL_die or OPENSSL_assert is about as fruitful as > complaining about the existence of abort() or assert()... That's how > this "philosophical discussion" started out that that's your > complaint, isn't it? If not, I'd like you to clarify.
Allowing a library to make policy decisions for the application is a philosophical debate. Allowing data to egress from the security boundary violates security policies, and its not philosophical. Jeff -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
