Xref: utzoo comp.sys.atari.st:14916 comp.sys.apple:11449 comp.sys.mac:29002 comp.sys.ibm.pc:26540
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!indri!nic.MR.NET!shamash!nis!sialis!orbit!pnet51!american
From: american@pnet51.cts.com (Jeff Iverson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st,comp.sys.apple,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Virus 101: Chapter 3
Message-ID: <815@orbit.UUCP>
Date: 25 Mar 89 01:05:06 GMT
Sender: root@orbit.UUCP
Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN.
Lines: 19

ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>This debate seems to be between two viewpoints.  The first is that
>security information should be limited to those who are responsible
>for maintaining security.  The second is that it should be freely
>available.
>
>Why not do both?  Release the information first just to security
>people.  Then after a few weeks or months, release it to everyone.

Well, the only question I have about this is how do WE or the moderators
decide WHO deserves to receive the information?  If security people first,
then how is that determined?  No flame, but it's another, but nicer, form
of censorship.

UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!american
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!american@nosc.mil
INET: american@pnet51.cts.com

Disclaimer:  Yes, that's what I said.  No, that's not what I meant.