RE: [Full-Disclosure] RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding

From: Curt Purdy (purdyat_private)
Date: Sat Apr 19 2003 - 13:55:26 PDT

  • Next message: Darren Reed: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding"

    The difference is quite clear, Theo is an individual and entitled to his own
    policitical views whether the President of the United States agrees with
    them or not.  DARPA is a government agency and has no right to any political
    view.  By definition an agency is created to fullfill its charter, in
    DARPA's case to promote advanced research in the US government's best
    interests, which a secure network OS clearly is.  The charter mentions
    nothing about Democratic, Replubican, Anarchist, war, or peace political
    views.
    
    Curt
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: full-disclosure-adminat_private
    [mailto:full-disclosure-adminat_private]On Behalf Of Paul Schmehl
    Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2003 11:22 AM
    To: Curt Purdy; jasoncat_private; 'InfoSec News'; isnat_private
    Cc: wkat_private; full-disclosureat_private
    Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding
    
    
    Somehow I think Theo will find some way to get the project done.  He was
    doing fine before the DARPA project.
    
    I do find it interesting that you characterize Theo as "expressing his
    views" yet you characterize DARPA as "politicizing a technical project".
    Weren't they both doing the same thing?  Why the difference in the
    characterization?
    
    --On Saturday, April 19, 2003 09:10:53 AM -0500 Curt Purdy
    <purdyat_private> wrote:
    
    > Unfortunately, one of the things that seems to have been overlooked in
    > this political discussion, which I believe does not have a place in this
    > technical forum, is that a great and sorely needed project is in jeopardy.
    > OpenBSD is generally considered one of the most secure network operating
    > systems available today, and that is even before the recent announcement
    > of the new resistance, if not vulnerability to buffer overflows which can
    > be considered the holy grail of programming.
    >
    > Whether you feel da Raadt was wrong for expressing his views on peace, or
    > that DARPA was wrong for politicizing a technical project, the point here
    > should be that the entire technical world is the loser...
    
    Paul Schmehl (paulsat_private)
    Adjunct Information Security Officer
    The University of Texas at Dallas
    AVIEN Founding Member
    http://www.utdallas.edu
    _______________________________________________
    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
    
    _______________________________________________
    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Apr 19 2003 - 19:45:44 PDT