[7202] in bugtraq
Re: Sun libnsl lameness
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matt Conover)
Thu Jul 9 16:06:47 1998
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 19:44:28 -0700
Reply-To: Matt Conover <mattc@REPSEC.COM>
From: Matt Conover <mattc@REPSEC.COM>
X-To: Allanah Myles <dossy@PANOPTIC.COM>
To: BUGTRAQ@NETSPACE.ORG
In-Reply-To: <19980706220025.C20100@panoptic.com>
On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Allanah Myles wrote:
> > These vulnerabilities are present in Sun Microsystem's
> > Solaris 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5.1.
>
> They fail to mention 2.6 - is this because this announcement was
> pre-2.6, or is it fixed in 2.6?
>
At the time, I myself didn't have access to a Solaris 2.6. I had verified
them a on Solaris 2.5.1, and later Mark had verified them on the other
versions. Now I recall hearing that Solaris 2.6 was vulnerable, but I
haven't confirmed that, so don't quote me on it. I'll check. Also, Sun has
been nice enough to provide us with a Solaris 2.7 to do some testing.
> This is another perfect example of why Sun should go back into the
> hardware design and architecture business, and get OUT of the
> OS/software business. Leave software design to real software
> designers.
>
Speaking for myself here, I like Sun. I like [most] of their
employees. For the record, I think it's unfair to judge a company's entire
ability off one field. Your opinion is biased on security. I must say that
I think several things are overlooked when it comes to Sun.
Example: If a company is great with security, but terrible with
portability, reliability, technical support... does that make them better
than a company that is good overall, but lousy in a few
fields? I don't think so.
*****************************************************************************
Matt Conover <matt@repsec.com> RSI R&D Team
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
RepSec, Inc. (RSI) [http://www.repsec.com]
w00w00 Security Development (WSD) [http://www.w00w00.org]
*****************************************************************************
