Re: Perl 5.16 binary filename security problem?

Can anyone explain what this is about?

This perhaps?

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Comment on Re: Perl 5.16 binary filename security problem?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Perl 5.16 binary filename security problem? by rurban (Scribe) on Jul 16, 2012 at 16:29 UTC
The relevant discussions are on a private security list.	[reply]
Re^3: Perl 5.16 binary filename security problem? by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Jul 17, 2012 at 02:55 UTC
I must say, I don't think keeping the exploits secret, when the software is not going to be ~~changes~~ changed to address them, is a good idea. Apparently the appropriate line of defense (I agree with what Chip Salzenberg said at the end of the thread) is with the dev anyway. I R DEV. THIS THREAD IS IN MY INTREST.	[reply]
Re^3: Perl 5.16 binary filename security problem? by Anonymous Monk on Jul 17, 2012 at 05:40 UTC
And how many $s does it take to corrupt a perl dev on that list and get a zero day?	[reply]
Re^4: Perl 5.16 binary filename security problem? by chip (Curate) on Sep 06, 2012 at 03:42 UTC
There is no basis to insinuate corruption in Perl's security list. this is a red herring. Responsible disclosure has two parts: RESPONSIBLE and DISCLOSURE. Reini has failed at disclosure, and his continued baseless rumormongering fails at responsibility.	[reply]


The stupid question is the question not asked
	PerlMonks