Re: ubuntu

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter Köhlmann
  • Start date Start date
P

Peter Köhlmann

dennis@home wrote:

< snip >

> Just because you have the source doesn't mean there isn't a backdoor.
> Take the compiler..
> you put code in the compiler to add a backdoor whenever you compile the
> compiler.
> Then you distribute the source and a binary copy of the compiler.

Ah yes. That old example.

Continue to prove that you know diddly squat about security

< snip more dennis idiocy >
--
Microsoft Windows - The art of incompetence.
 
"PeterKöhlmann" . wrote in message
news:fjpi09$qqt$03$1@news.t-online.com...
> dennis@home wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>> Just because you have the source doesn't mean there isn't a backdoor.
>> Take the compiler..
>> you put code in the compiler to add a backdoor whenever you compile the
>> compiler.
>> Then you distribute the source and a binary copy of the compiler.
>
> Ah yes. That old example.
>
> Continue to prove that you know diddly squat about security
>
> < snip more dennis idiocy >

Why do you bother posting?
You never contribute anything.
Maybe you don't know anything to contribute?
Maybe your expertise can show us why the above cannot happen?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:fjpl5v$179$1@news.datemas.de...
>
>
> "PeterKöhlmann" . wrote in message
> news:fjpi09$qqt$03$1@news.t-online.com...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>>> Just because you have the source doesn't mean there isn't a backdoor.
>>> Take the compiler..
>>> you put code in the compiler to add a backdoor whenever you compile the
>>> compiler.
>>> Then you distribute the source and a binary copy of the compiler.
>>
>> Ah yes. That old example.
>>
>> Continue to prove that you know diddly squat about security
>>
>> < snip more dennis idiocy >
>
> Why do you bother posting?
> You never contribute anything.
> Maybe you don't know anything to contribute?
> Maybe your expertise can show us why the above cannot happen?

why aren't you asking Frank these questions?
or is it a fanboy-club thing?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"john" <john@msn.com> wrote in message
news:epO$jxRPIHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
> news:fjpl5v$179$1@news.datemas.de...
>>
>>
>> "PeterKöhlmann" . wrote in message
>> news:fjpi09$qqt$03$1@news.t-online.com...
>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>> < snip >
>>>
>>>> Just because you have the source doesn't mean there isn't a backdoor.
>>>> Take the compiler..
>>>> you put code in the compiler to add a backdoor whenever you compile the
>>>> compiler.
>>>> Then you distribute the source and a binary copy of the compiler.
>>>
>>> Ah yes. That old example.
>>>
>>> Continue to prove that you know diddly squat about security
>>>
>>> < snip more dennis idiocy >
>>
>> Why do you bother posting?
>> You never contribute anything.
>> Maybe you don't know anything to contribute?
>> Maybe your expertise can show us why the above cannot happen?
>
> why aren't you asking Frank these questions?
Frank doesn't keep accusing me of lies, etc. like Peter does and I am not
employed to police the net.

> or is it a fanboy-club thing?

Is that the standard answer when people want to try and avoid the truth?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top