Re^4: Perl 5.16 binary filename security problem?

"Coy?" Please explain. I am confused. (edited to remove reference to accidental anonymity, which did not apply)

Very simple, any thread you look at, its always you trading insults with someone -- and you just did it again in Re: Perl 5.16 binary filename security problem? -- yeah chip, we saw that already in the other thread, we're not on the private security list, we're wondering what the issue is, if it isn't real, well then EXPOSE it

Comment on Re^4: Perl 5.16 binary filename security problem?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Perl 5.16 binary filename security problem? by chip (Curate) on Sep 06, 2012 at 22:37 UTC
That's not how security response teams work. They accept reports, make patches, and coordinate releases for bugs. They don't publicize non-bugs. Also, Reini already publicized it. Didn't notice? Yeah, that's because it's not a problem, so far as anyone can figure. (edited to add 2nd paragraph) -- Chip Salzenberg, Free-Floating Agent of Chaos	[reply]
Re^6: Perl 5.16 binary filename security problem? by Anonymous Monk on Sep 07, 2012 at 03:14 UTC
That's not how security response teams work. They accept reports, make patches, and coordinate releases for bugs. They don't publicize non-bugs. Huh? PerlMonks is not a security team Also, Reini already publicized it. Didn't notice? Yeah, that's because it's not a problem, so far as anyone can figure. (edited to add 2nd paragraph) Well, if the "relevant discussions" are on a private list, there apparently is more to it	[reply]
Re^7: Perl 5.16 binary filename security problem? by chip (Curate) on Sep 07, 2012 at 05:00 UTC
PerlMonks is not a security team No, but the group that received Reini's mail -- and whom you're asking to disclose the contents of that mail -- are. there apparently is more to it No, there really isn't. -- Chip Salzenberg, Free-Floating Agent of Chaos	[reply]