[Slackbuilds-users] Corcern about sources' procedence

Hac Er spamered at hotmail.com
Thu Jun 9 17:47:07 UTC 2011

Eric Hameleers wrote:

> Niels is one of the admins of slackbuilds.org.
> If you do not trust his contributions, then there is the door ------->

I think this is another version of a piece of wisdom I have already

It seems I did choose a bad example with Snort and Neils. Sorry if
someone got offended.

By the way, Eric, thanks for your multilib and LibreOffice packages.

Chris wrote:

>If you do not have any liabilities then you have no problems.
>If you have liability and you do not afford an auditor then you are in
>the wrong business.

Not everybody can afford an auditor, but surely many hate the
idea of their computers turned into spam-sender-zombie-robots. No
matter your objetives or circunstances, the less risks you take, the

Greg wrote:

>While I know the slackbuild admins are only
>reviewing the script, and not Niels copy of of version x.y.z, he has,
>nevertheless, developed a large positive personal reputation in the

That's what I wanted to know.

I'm not attacking Neils, nor anyone. I was just asking how does
SlackBuild care of a potential security issue. A threat is less
dangerous when you know its existence. Many web sites (mainly aidmed as
MS Windows users) which provide software for free do contain malware
just because nobody checks the software that is posted in them. 

In SlackBuilds you can mitigate the risks by tracking down the original
source or by following only the links provided by reputable people who
is not trashing away its reputation so easily.

That is enough for me.


More information about the SlackBuilds-users mailing list