Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:57:52 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: D J Hawkey Jr <hawkeyd@visi.com> Cc: security at FreeBSD <freebsd-security@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: what actually uses xdr_mem.c? Message-ID: <20030327065752.GA18940@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20030326234503.A21679@sheol.localdomain> References: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0303252144400.21019-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net> <20030326061041.A17052@sheol.localdomain> <20030326071637.A17385@sheol.localdomain> <3E81AF6C.3060705@arnes.si> <20030327160638.J1404@gamplex.bde.org> <20030326234503.A21679@sheol.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 11:45:04PM -0600, D J Hawkey Jr wrote: >Given that it's improbable, if not nearly impossible, to discover what >statically-linked binaries may be involved with any vulnerability, isn't >it reasonable to ask if the benefits of statically-linked binaries aren't >outweighed by the [security] drawbacks? This particular bikeshed has been discussed to death several times. I suggest you peruse the archives rather than re-opening it. Peter
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030327065752.GA18940>