3 ms·
That's quite interesting because the bug was there and was quite clear, and was not fixed by one of the most brilliant security persons out there (DJB). Maybe h
by antirez 6y ago
That's quite interesting because the bug was there and was quite clear, and was not fixed by one of the most brilliant security persons out there (DJB). Maybe here the attitude really was the wrong one, considering how security oriented qmail was since the start, because the simplest possible fix does not seem to demand any other dimension, like complexity or performances.
- dependenttypes 6y agoWhile I think that he should have rewarded the original 2005 bug report I do not think that he did anything wrong after that. He was pretty clear about the memory limit for years now.
- ptx 6y agoIf the program only runs correctly with a memory limit in place, perhaps it should (if this is possible?) check for a memory limit when it starts and abort if it's missing.