From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: GnuTLS for W32 Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:26:17 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87r4zczwbq.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <87hb0b77nr.fsf@lifelogs.com> <8739bvs27m.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87ty4b4329.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87hb0b3yoe.fsf@lifelogs.com> <6ED011D5-E185-44C6-BB31-A445A4E5F83A@gmail.com> <87wr976otx.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87ipkq6yy5.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87boqi6tzz.fsf@linux-hvfx.site> <87ehve3ul8.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87lipl22xm.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87boqh20ha.fsf@lifelogs.com> <877h151x01.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87y5tkzzwp.fsf@lifelogs.com> Reply-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1325864118 4302 80.91.229.12 (6 Jan 2012 15:35:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:35:18 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 06 16:35:14 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RjBp2-0001Q5-OI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:35:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51320 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjBp2-0006QR-1n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:35:12 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:39394) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjBoy-0006OY-D7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:35:09 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjBhE-0001iF-OZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:27:26 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:57545) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjBhE-0001ha-BD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:27:08 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RjBhB-000694-PL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:27:05 +0100 Original-Received: from c-76-28-40-19.hsd1.vt.comcast.net ([76.28.40.19]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:27:05 +0100 Original-Received: from tzz by c-76-28-40-19.hsd1.vt.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:27:05 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 41 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-76-28-40-19.hsd1.vt.comcast.net X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:9NBigaZqyUqUGahRAh8vih7ytYw= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:147400 Archived-At: On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:35:44 +0100 Juanma Barranquero wrote: JB> 2012/1/6 Ted Zlatanov : >> I'm not.  The risk is not worth the effort with image libraries. JB> I don't understand why. Buffer overruns exploited through JB> carefully-crafted images have been used before. I would fear that (as JB> a vector for malware) much more than someone eavesdropping my JB> communications. I don't think those are as risky, but even if I did it doesn't really support your point. >> SSH clients are not extensible layout engines with embedded interpreters >> and flexible package managers.  As I keep saying, compare Emacs to >> Firefox and Chrome, not to `vim' or `ssh' and `grep'.  It hasn't been >> just an editor in a long while.  Eclipse is another good comparison >> point. JB> Compare it to Apache, which can be infinitely extended via external JB> modules and it's mission-critical for so many business. That's a very tough comparison. I'm listing "extensible layout engines with embedded interpreters and flexible package managers" which Apache has never been, never mind that it's not interactive with the user since it's a daemon. >> No, it's not like that at all.  Intrusion detection and security >> advisories are completely different things. JB> I thought it was evident I was not comparing situations, but JB> inadequate feelings of security. Yes, I understood your point. While you're right that AV software can provide a false feeling of security, security advisories do not provide a feeling of security at all. They let you know when your security is at risk. None of my proposal aims to make users feel secure, but rather to tell them when they are not. Ted