On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:15 AM, Adam Van Ymeren wrote:
>> Well, about this part I can't speak for Spender and PaX team. IMOHO,
>> Spender doesn't care if you share the patch to those real FLOSS
>> hackers who knows the importance of contribute back to the community.
>
> This
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Shawn wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Adam Van Ymeren wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:41 AM, Shawn wrote:
>>> I'm not an expert of GPL compliance. I personally don't see any GPL
>>>
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:41 AM, Shawn wrote:
> I'm not an expert of GPL compliance. I personally don't see any GPL
> violation in PaX/Grsecurity. Because of some embedded vendors pissed
> off PaX/Grsecurity's authors last year and then they decided stable
> patch was going to
It's all for naught on x86 however: both the Intel chipset and the AMD are
backdoored
(as we've known for years). ARM is also backdoored.
What does that leave? Elbrus from Russia (for 7k a pop) and Leemote from China?
It would be nice if an honest country would disregard the patents and just
I'm not an expert of GPL compliance. I personally don't see any GPL
violation in PaX/Grsecurity. Because of some embedded vendors pissed
off PaX/Grsecurity's authors last year and then they decided stable
patch was going to customer-only, which means you could get the source
code once you paid.
concernedfoss...@teknik.io writes:
> Corporations are in bed with the governments.
> (Think Intel's built-in professional backdoor first just known as "VPro" then
> broken out as the "Intel Management Engine", which can always be remotely
> re-enabled)
>
> You expect them to value security for
What did you think of the guy who uns_bscribed after this message?
Why would he do that?
Was he thinking "damned leftists, accusing Intel of installing a backdoor into
it's chipset, that's preposterous! The shiny brochures are all FAKE!"
June 9 2016 3:30 AM, "IngeGNUe"
On 06/08/16 22:01, concernedfoss...@teknik.io wrote:
> Corporations are in bed with the governments.
> (Think Intel's built-in professional backdoor first just known as "VPro" then
> broken out as the "Intel Management Engine", which can always be remotely
> re-enabled)
>
> You expect them to
Soylent news published an article/discussion on GRSecurity, RMS, etc
If you're interested it's here:
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=16/06/02/214243
>RMS Responds - GRsecurity is Preventing Others From Redistributing Source Code
>[UPDATED]