I am still not able to build Cygwin from the latest CVS sources...
But anyway, that's only a part of the problem. My boss wants to be sure
there is no malicious code in the Cygwin distribution I use.
So he's telling me to rebuild it from scratch from the CVS sources.
His logic is that since
I am still not able to build Cygwin from the latest CVS sources...
But anyway, that's only a part of the problem. My boss wants to be sure
there is no malicious code in the Cygwin distribution I use.
So he's telling me to rebuild it from scratch from the CVS sources.
His logic is that since we can
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 11:57:59AM +0100, Gabriel SOUBIES wrote:
I am still not able to build Cygwin from the latest CVS sources...
But anyway, that's only a part of the problem. My boss wants to be sure
there is no malicious code in the Cygwin distribution I use.
So he's telling me to rebuild it
...
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Gabriel SOUBIES [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 5:57 AM
Subject: RE: Unable to compile cygwin
I am still not able to build Cygwin from the latest CVS sources
Christopher Faylor wrote:
But, then, why should your boss trust me to be giving you the right
information? I might be maliciously steering you towards corrupted code
which was specially intended to subvert your security...
What he's not saying here is that secretly he has committed the
Hi everybody!
I've been using Cygwin for a while and am really happy with it.
But recently my paranoid boss has asked me to prove him that there was no
security problem with using Cygwin on our secure network.
The first step towards this goal is to recompile Cygwin so that we can be
sure the code
On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 03:29:25PM +0100, Gabriel SOUBIES wrote:
I've been using Cygwin for a while and am really happy with it.
But recently my paranoid boss has asked me to prove him that there was no
security problem with using Cygwin on our secure network.
Cygwin is not secure. It's a given.
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 03:29:25PM +0100, Gabriel SOUBIES wrote:
I've been using Cygwin for a while and am really happy with it.
But recently my paranoid boss has asked me to prove him that there was no
security problem with using Cygwin on our secure network.
Cygwin
Jim Ramsay wrote:
Ha! Ask that boss to prove to you that there is no security problem
running Windows on a 'secure' network.
To a person with that mentality, Bill Gates is implicitly trustworthy
(i.e. if he says it's true, it must be true by definition, because it's
a big company that stands
On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 11:15:34AM -0800, Shankar Unni wrote:
Jim Ramsay wrote:
Ha! Ask that boss to prove to you that there is no security problem
running Windows on a 'secure' network.
To a person with that mentality, Bill Gates is implicitly trustworthy
(i.e. if he says it's true, it must be
proving a negative is much harder than proving a positive...
Arash Partow
On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 11:15:34AM -0800, Shankar Unni wrote:
Jim Ramsay wrote:
Ha! Ask that boss to prove to you that there is no security problem
running Windows on a 'secure' network.
To a person with that mentality,
On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 09:54:43PM +, Arash Partow wrote:
proving a negative is much harder than proving a positive...
Yeah. You're right. It's better to just assume it's gloriously
trustworthy if it's free software and maliciously bad if it comes from
Microsoft.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Yeah. You're right. It's better to just assume it's gloriously
trustworthy if it's free software and maliciously bad if it comes from
Microsoft.
I like your sarcasm, but I prefer to assume that the only truly secure
network is one without computers attached, and the
I don't see how your sarcastic remarks relate to what i said...
Yeah. You're right. It's better to just assume it's gloriously
trustworthy if it's free software and maliciously bad if it comes from
Microsoft.
all i said was that its harder to prove something in a negative
context rather than a
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 12:39:04AM +, Arash Partow wrote:
I don't see how your sarcastic remarks relate to what i said...
Yeah. You're right. It's better to just assume it's gloriously
trustworthy if it's free software and maliciously bad if it comes from
Microsoft.
all i said was that its
On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 04:31:57PM -0600, Jim Ramsay wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Yeah. You're right. It's better to just assume it's gloriously
trustworthy if it's free software and maliciously bad if it comes from
Microsoft.
I like your sarcasm, but I prefer to assume that the only truly
On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 08:53:33PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 04:31:57PM -0600, Jim Ramsay wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
I like your sarcasm, but I prefer to assume that the only truly secure
network is one without computers attached, and the only truly secure
On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 11:13:00PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
I believe that the latest snapshot is as secure as Windows in the case
where the only Cygwin processes are logged in using Terminal Services
on Windows 2003 or Windows 2000 sp4, and do not have the Create Global
Object privilege
18 matches
Mail list logo
