[CrackMonkey] Another nail in the Pine coffin

[Monkey Master]

begin  Aaron Lehmann quotation:
> It seems that you misunderstand the purpose of my example. I do not
> attempt to prove that the functions cannot or are not used unsafely
> within pine, but rather the assumption that becuase something uses
> the functions that it must be insecure.

	However, the high number of incidents where that function is
used makes auditing nearly impossible.  Therefore, they make it
impossible to say with any feasibility that it is secure.
 
 	Naturally, one cannot say that any one program of sufficient
complexity to be useful is secure or insecure.  But the statistics
show that PINE would be difficult to secure or repair.

-- 
CrackMonkey.Org - Non-sequitur arguments and ad-hominem personal attacks
LinuxCabal.Org  - Co-location facilities and meeting space 
Pigdog.Org      - The Online Handbook for Bad People of the Future
                You are not entitled to your opinions.