Hi,
How to read the unique identification number from a network card? (From a
'C' programme)
or How to read ID of CPU or ID of Hard Disk? (From a 'C' Programme) ?
--
Thanks In advance,
- Koteswara Rao
Ph: 040 6513274 Extn: 8842
JUNO online services Dev Pvt Ltd.
GPR building, Begumpet,
Hyderabad,
Ben Bucksch wrote:
> But now I am a bit confused for another reason. What you say suggests
> that *you* wrote that paragraph in the proposal, while Frank said, he
> wriote the proposal without consulting Netscape.
No, I said (not quoting myself exactly) that the proposal was not
dictated to
ARE YOU TIRED OF MAKING YOUR BOSS RICH?
Start your own business NOW! I will help you!
Become financially Independent using our proven system!
Learn to TRULY succeed working from HOME with your computer and phone
I CAN SHOW YOU AN OPPORTUNITY THAT IS NOTHING SHORT OF A MIRACLE.
Does that sound li
Mitchell Stoltz wrote:
[citation from draft proposal]
> Ben Bucksch wrote:
>
>> Just that this point says "fixed", while I want to inform in both
>> cases - when a bug gets discovered (and I have a workaround) and when
>> I have a fix.
>
> That's what I intended. Sorry for the confusion.
That'
Mitchell Stoltz wrote:
> If there were really a bug serious enough to delete a user's hard
> drive, we (the various vendor reps and security folks) will discuss via
> the security newsgroup what the appropriate response should be. Bugs of
> this severity are *rare* and can be handled as they
Ben Bucksch wrote:
> Mitchell Stoltz wrote:
>
>> You've both missed this point:
>> --- begin quote ---
>> Mozilla distributors participating in security bug group activities
>> can mention in their release notes that a security bug has been fixed,
>> but we ask that they be vague and not descr
Hello
Since the launch of www.yourarticle.net there has been a considerable uptake
of registration from Editors, Journalists, PR Agencies, Corporate Press
Offices and Authors throughout North America, Europe, Asia and the Pacific.
The web site has now been further enhanced with the latest techn
Mitchell Stoltz wrote:
> You've both missed this point:
> --- begin quote ---
> Mozilla distributors participating in security bug group activities
> can mention in their release notes that a security bug has been fixed,
> but we ask that they be vague and not describe the exploit in detail.
>
Frank Hecker wrote:
> However I believe the intent was that we (mozilla.org staff) would
> encourage the security module owner, peers, and the security bug group
> to consider issuing such vague warnings where appropriate, but would
> not mandate as an absolute policy that this be done immedia
Stuart Ballard wrote:
> Ben Bucksch wrote:
>
>>Stuart Ballard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This would include notifying your users of the bug's existence as soon
>>>as it is found (provided you only do so in a vague way)
>>>
>>>
>>That is what I need to do, but I am disallowed to do that (to my
>>understandi
Stuart Ballard wrote
> But the first item is so broadly worded that it could cover anything,
> including providing this kind of warning. Could you narrow down that
> first item somewhat, and make it explicitly clear that giving public
> warning to users about the bug, provided specifics are not
Ben Bucksch wrote:
>
> Stuart Ballard wrote:
>
> >This would include notifying your users of the bug's existence as soon
> >as it is found (provided you only do so in a vague way)
> >
> That is what I need to do, but I am disallowed to do that (to my
> understanding) under the new scheme.
That'
Stuart Ballard wrote:
>So would you [...] allow bugs to be kept secret
>indefinitely if a fix is provided?
>
No. No bug should ever be kept confidental infinitely. All bugs should
be, in any case, opened after about 6 months. That's another defect in
the current proposal IMO.
Information about
Ben Bucksch wrote:
>
> That's almost always the case. The worst and thus most important and
> interesting bugs will probably be kept condfidental for a years or so.
That only makes sense if the bug is still open.
> In other words, I trust neither mozilla.org staff nor the security group
> at la
Stuart Ballard wrote:
>It may be that someone's latest
>branded release has the bug, or something else, but there must be
>*something*.
>
That's almost always the case. The worst and thus most important and
interesting bugs will probably be kept condfidental for a years or so.
>And when that "s
ARE YOU TIRED OF MAKING YOUR BOSS RICH?
Start your own business NOW! I will help you!
Become financially Independent using our proven system!
Learn to TRULY succeed working from HOME with your computer and phone
I CAN SHOW YOU AN OPPORTUNITY THAT IS NOTHING SHORT OF A MIRACLE.
Does that sound li
Frank Hecker wrote:
> The problems you're concerned about are mainly problems when the bug
> reporter is a Mozilla vendor with an incentive to keep the bug
> confidential. They can take advantage of their position as a bug
> reporter to try to keep the bug private.
This concern seems to be the b
Stuart Ballard wrote:
>This would include notifying your users of the bug's existence as soon
>as it is found (provided you only do so in a vague way)
>
That is what I need to do, but I am disallowed to do that (to my
understanding) under the new scheme.
Frank,
I repect you, but I strongly disagree with you here and with the
proposal. I believe that it is completely inadequate for an open-source
project.
Frank Hecker wrote:
> > What, if that bug or strongly related topics are discussed on the
> > mailing list? IMO, there should be a policy th
Ben Bucksch wrote:
>
> I am very glad about that, as I really need that info, but that's also
> why I see it as something like "stating the necessarity". But the
> proposal doesn't even allow me do to everything I need to do for Beonex.
Could you be specific about what you feel you would need to
Frank Hecker wrote:
>
> If you're wondering why I'm reluctant to commit on this, I have the
> selfish motivation that I don't want mozilla.org staff (including me) to
> have to specify in advance excactly what should be done for each and
> every possible contingency. I would prefer to delegate to
Stuart Ballard wrote:
>I don't know whether this will affect your views, but did you notice
>that under this policy, the "small, hand-picked group of people" would
>almost certainly include yourself?
>
Yes, I am aware of that. Actually, Mitch said something like that I
"would certainly be part o
Frank Hecker wrote:
> If you're wondering why I'm reluctant to commit on this, I have the
> selfish motivation that I don't want mozilla.org staff (including me)
> to have to specify in advance excactly what should be done for each
> and every possible contingency. I would prefer to delegate t
Stuart Ballard wrote:
> I've heard multiple members of mozilla.org staff refer to Beonex as a
> "vendor", which would mean that Beonex has a clear case for having a
> representative in the security group based on the third option above.
> (It wouldn't *have* to be you, but it *could* be, and pre
Stuart Ballard wrote:
> Can we make it formal policy that a bug which *did not exist* in any
> previous milestone can never be "security-sensitive"? That is, if a bug
> is reported between 0.9.7 and 0.9.8, and it turns out that 0.9.7 is not
> affected by this bug, then the bug should be kept publ
Ben Bucksch wrote:
>
> It isn't meant as offening as it might sound, but while you *considered*
> all views, the view of Netscape is about the only one followed in this
> policy. You have neither full disclose nor disclosure after a certain
> amount of time. Everything is controlled by a small, h
Ben Bucksch wrote:
> Frank Hecker wrote:
>> * A person who reports a security bug will have continued access
>> to all Bugzilla activities associated with that bug, even if the
>> bug is marked "Security-Sensitive."
>> * Any other persons may be given access to a particul
> Frank Hecker wrote:
>
> If you have comments or questions concerning it, please post them
> to this newsgroup/mailing list, and I'll try to address them as best I
> can.
Just a couple...
> The mozilla.org Bugzilla system is
> being modified to remove the ability to mark bugs as "Netscape
> Co
Frank Hecker wrote:
> * Full information about security bugs will be restricted to a
> known group of people, using the Bugzilla access control
> restrictions described above.
>
> * As noted above, information about security bugs can be held
> confidential for some peri
29 matches
Mail list logo
