Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? |
| Date | 2015-11-04 11:49 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <87vb9i2de1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <n1ahsd$2sh$1@dont-email.me> <fdfca5e3-40df-4f03-895d-636dd60e61cb@googlegroups.com> <n1ajhr$a04$1@dont-email.me> <87fv0m4z9s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <n1cm9q$e1m$1@dont-email.me> |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > On 03/11/15 21:13, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> >>> On 03/11/15 15:11, G G wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>> I wonder as the language gets better, well, changes, I know better >>>> maybe too subjective, if the code of yesteryear should be re thought >>>> and then written using today's C standard. >>> >>> It wouldn't make things any more secure than they are now. >>> >>>> Yes, I see your point, it boils down to the programmer. >>> >>> Take Heartbleed as an example. >>> >>> This is an example of a new vulnerability that was introduced (in >>> 2012, I think?) into previously secure (well, as far as we know) code. >>> >>> The idea of Heartbeat was to allow TLS/DTLS to keep a connection alive >>> by sending occasional "heartbeat" packets. Alice sends Bob some data, >>> Bob sends it back, and thus Alice and Bob prove to each other that >>> they are still alive. How much data? Alice tells Bob this, and *Bob >>> believes her*! And that was how the Heartbleed exploit was made >>> possible: all Alice has to do is tell a little lie to Bob, and Bob >>> will send her absolutely shedloads of data in the belief that she had >>> already sent it to him and therefore there couldn't be any security >>> risk, right? >>> >>> So Bob does, say, some private key finagling, and then Alice sends in >>> a heartbeat: "Bob, my heartbeat is DOG, that's 64KB", she says with a >>> straight face. And Bob sends her 64KB of, for example, private keys. >>> >>> You won't fix this by fixing the language. >> >> This struck me as an extraordinary claim, but then I calmed down and >> thought about it bit more! I think your reply comes from a position of >> conflating the error with the consequences. Yes, programmers will >> always make mistakes, and the mistake that was made in this case was a >> simple failure to check a bound. That could happen in any programming >> language, but the actual harm was done because of a >> >> memcpy(bp, pl, payload); >> >> a few lines later. The incoming request (pointed to by pl), and the >> outgoing reply (pointed to by bp) are treated as un-typed byte arrays, >> and data is copied from one to the other with no regard to the sizes or >> types of the source objects. >> > > That was not the problem in Heartbleed. The problem was that the code > blindly trusted data from an outside source - the "length" field in > the incoming packet. For any sort of secure coding, you simply don't > do that. It was not a problem caused by buffer overflows, or untyped > byte arrays - it was a problem caused by the developers being > careless. Of course it was blindly trusting data -- the error was not to check the value of 'payload' -- but the harm was done by the memcpy. That copy was able to copy data that followed the message buffer -- either outside of it altogether, of data that just happened to be lying around from some other use (I think it was the former, but I'm not sure). If all it could do was copy some or all of the buffer it could send back nothing that was not already know to the sender. In some languages this bug could have been just a logic bug. Maybe it would show up in the logs. Maybe it would cause the server to crash -- bad news for sure, but no need to change everyone's keys! > No programming language will fix this. But it might prevent the harm. If the memcpy had been a 'substring' operation on a bounded string, the request to extract more than was there would simply have stopped at the boundary set when the message was received. > "Fixing" the programmers will > seldom fix it either - it is the apparatus /around/ the actual coding > that needs fixed. The TLS library programmers were a small group, > with little or no funding, working away by themselves without review > or outside checks or controls. > > So the way to avoid such problems (IMHO) is to give the people behind > such important software an appropriate level of support. Pay them for > the work, so that they can do it full-time and not just as a hobby. > Pay others to check the code. Pay for computers powerful enough for > massive testing. Pay for someone to document the code, and someone to > manage the project. Pay for the /boring/ stuff that rarely receives > the care needed when code is written voluntarily. A great many people > make money from software or services that depend critically on the > code behind Heartbleed - they often contribute money, people and > resources to all sorts of open source software, but they need to be a > good deal better at making sure they also support these quite yet > critical projects as a well as the big and visible ones. These are all good points, and I don't want to give the impression that I think changing languages is the right (let alone only) solution. In fact it may not be possible for many reasons both technical and social. But there are cases where C is used because people think they should use C, not because it is the best technical solution for the problem, and in those cases the programmer is taking on a greater responsibility for the safety of the end result than they need to. The correctness of the program is always the programmer's responsibility, but the harm caused by programming errors is shared with the language and the run-time environment. (As it happens, I think that some languages can help with getting the program logic right in the first place, but that's another issue not related to the bug being discussed here.) <snip> -- Ben.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Is it possible C is the security problem? G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 06:31 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-03 14:57 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-03 15:04 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 07:11 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-03 15:25 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-03 20:13 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-11-03 15:18 -0500
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-03 20:34 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-03 22:47 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 15:36 +0530
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-04 10:34 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-03 15:18 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-03 17:42 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-11-03 15:32 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-03 23:57 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-11-03 21:13 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-04 07:22 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-04 11:32 +0100
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-04 10:54 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-04 13:38 +0100
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-07 08:27 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-05 09:26 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-05 10:03 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-11-05 08:53 -0500
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-06 10:04 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2015-11-05 21:06 +0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-05 11:14 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-05 11:44 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-07 02:43 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-07 17:30 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-11-10 16:35 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-11-10 11:52 -0500
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-11 00:48 -0600
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-11-17 21:55 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-17 19:14 -0600
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-18 03:40 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-17 23:01 -0600
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-18 09:00 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-18 09:09 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-18 15:35 -0600
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-18 21:35 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-18 20:38 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-19 05:40 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-18 22:55 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-19 19:56 +1300
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-18 23:40 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-19 21:05 +1300
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-19 06:40 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-11-19 11:37 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-11-19 12:09 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-19 12:52 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-20 12:20 +1300
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-19 15:34 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-22 16:43 +1300
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-21 21:28 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-22 20:51 +1300
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-22 07:26 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-22 09:42 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-22 09:59 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-23 07:08 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-23 11:57 +1300
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-22 16:06 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-23 13:26 +1300
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-19 09:09 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-20 02:29 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-11-20 12:33 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-20 09:26 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-19 13:37 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-19 14:07 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-20 01:38 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-19 18:43 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-20 12:09 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-20 01:48 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-20 11:16 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-20 05:04 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-20 18:18 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-20 11:55 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-21 00:27 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-20 18:57 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-20 19:50 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-20 20:06 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-20 20:46 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-20 20:56 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-21 04:58 -0600
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-21 04:59 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-21 13:26 -0600
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-11-21 14:38 -0500
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-21 06:49 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-20 22:56 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-21 04:36 -0600
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-21 06:44 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-21 15:59 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-21 18:33 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-21 19:19 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-21 13:33 -0600
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-22 14:42 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-22 14:17 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-20 14:51 +1300
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-19 08:06 -0600
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-18 15:40 -0600
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-20 13:57 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-21 06:56 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-23 03:16 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-23 22:28 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-23 21:11 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-24 10:29 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-25 02:38 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-27 13:54 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-10 10:23 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-10 11:21 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-11-04 00:58 +0100
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-11-03 18:26 -0600
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-04 02:06 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-04 14:12 +1300
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-04 07:02 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-04 20:42 +1300
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-04 08:06 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-04 11:25 +0100
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-04 11:49 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-04 13:46 +0100
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-11-17 21:58 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-17 23:37 +0100
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-12-06 07:55 -0500
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-12-06 14:23 -0600
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-03 15:59 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-03 16:55 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? see.my.homepage@gmail.com - 2015-11-04 02:29 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-04 10:48 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? see.my.homepage@gmail.com - 2015-11-04 14:11 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-05 00:39 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-05 01:15 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-05 02:02 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-04 18:31 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-05 12:38 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-04 18:24 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-04 19:37 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-05 13:24 +0100
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-05 06:47 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? see.my.homepage@gmail.com - 2015-11-05 00:35 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-05 09:55 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? see.my.homepage@gmail.com - 2015-11-05 05:02 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-11-06 10:18 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? see.my.homepage@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 05:57 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-11-04 08:32 -0500
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-03 15:01 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-03 15:10 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-11-03 11:02 -0500
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-03 18:13 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-11-03 15:16 -0500
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-04 09:38 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-04 11:38 +0100
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-11-03 11:58 -0500
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-03 09:13 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-11-03 18:08 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-11-04 04:49 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-04 02:22 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-11-04 13:28 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-04 08:39 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 10:45 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-03 11:05 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-11-03 18:09 -0600
Is it possible C is the security problem? Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 01:15 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-11-04 13:31 +0000
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 10:55 -0800
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-11-18 14:05 -0500
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? "D. Aaron Sawyer" <aaron@110.net> - 2015-11-18 19:47 -0500
Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-11-20 10:43 +0000
csiph-web