unsolicited at swiz.ca
Fri May 30 15:23:40 EDT 2014
But as the articles say ... audits have been and are being performed.
And nothing found thus far. And expectations thus far are that nothing
will be found.
So unsupported only means ... for what it does, the problem is solved.
If it ain't broke, and nothing says it's broke, it don't need fixing.
(Enhancements are a different beastie.)
The eyes are on it. Your analogy does not apply.
The source is there.
No reason not to use it unless and until something proves otherwise, and
even then there's nothing to say what you have will be inaccessible. You
may not want to use it in the wild, based upon information discovered at
that time, but we're not there yet, and may never be.
Your premise is as bad as the announcement ... there may be bugs in it
... - it does not say there are bugs in it.
Neither can prove a negative.
On 14-05-30 02:51 PM, Darcy Casselman wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:33 PM, unsolicited <unsolicited at swiz.ca
> <mailto:unsolicited at swiz.ca>> wrote:
> > But yeah, it's probably time to look for alternatives.
> Because unsupported security software is bad security software. Because
> while many eyes make for shallow bugs, no eyes make for huge, gaping
> chasms from which nothing escapes.
> Mind you, if someone sensible comes along and forks the code,
> disregarding the license, I'll probably go back to using it. Like Paul
> says, there's no real alternative on Windows and certainly nothing
> that's cross-platform.
> kwlug-disc mailing list
> kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
More information about the kwlug-disc