From owner-freebsd-security Thu Dec 2 4: 6:46 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from megaweapon.zigg.com (megaweapon.zigg.com [206.114.60.8]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B5E15074 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 04:06:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from matt@zigg.com) Received: from localhost (matt@localhost) by megaweapon.zigg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA89189; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 07:04:41 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from matt@zigg.com) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 07:04:40 -0500 (EST) From: Matt Behrens To: Jesse Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , Brock Tellier , Bill Swingle , security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [Re: [btellier@USA.NET: Several FreeBSD-3.3 vulnerabilities] ] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Yesterday, Jesse wrote: : Wouldn't it be reasonable, however, to expect the security officer to : redirect notifications to the proper maintainers? In most organizations, : if you contact the wrong person, they'll pass on your message to the : correct one. One might think one of the benefits of having a security : officer is not just a person to fix security holes (I doubt that's the job : description, anyway), but to help coordinate and assure that the : information gets to the right people. Isn't that what happened? Didn't Mr. Tellier say that the security officer had ``contacted the maintainers''? Matt Behrens Owner/Administrator, zigg.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message