On 7/12/07, Sean Cavanaugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
.
.
as for the pfSense people, they have a habit of working and fixing issues
with the core of pfSense pretty soon after you notify them of the issue. its
not uncommon for the FIRST response to a problem report to be "try the
snapshot in 2 ho
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 23:38 +0200, Rainer Duffner wrote:
> Am 11.07.2007 um 20:53 schrieb Bill Marquette:
>
> > I know of no official audit of our code. Nor have I ever seen a post
> > to bugtraq, full-disclosure, or anything on secunia. But take that
> > for what it's worth...nothing.
> >
>
>
Am 11.07.2007 um 20:53 schrieb Bill Marquette:
I know of no official audit of our code. Nor have I ever seen a post
to bugtraq, full-disclosure, or anything on secunia. But take that
for what it's worth...nothing.
A code audit of the GUI/back-end would be pretty nice.
But even if the cod
; To: support@pfsense.com> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007
> 14:42:10 -0400> Subject: [pfSense Support] Re: Vulnerabities?> > Bill
> Marquette wrote:> > Please clarify. If you are referring to IPS, you get what
> you pay for> > (and in the case of P
I know of no official audit of our code. Nor have I ever seen a post
to bugtraq, full-disclosure, or anything on secunia. But take that
for what it's worth...nothing.
--Bill
On 7/11/07, Ugo Bellavance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bill Marquette wrote:
> Please clarify. If you are referring to
Bill Marquette wrote:
Please clarify. If you are referring to IPS, you get what you pay for
(and in the case of PIX, I'm not convinced you actually do get what
you paid for).
Is there an history of security holes in these components of PfSense
(PF, IPSec-Tools, QOS)?
Ugo
-
