|
|
|
|
- Readme First! - Read and follow the rules, otherwise your posts will be closed |
|
|
|
|
|
There are currently, 740 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
|
|
|
|
|
| The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
| | | | |
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register | | | | |
Re: Editorial History on PHP-Nuke and Post-Nuke by Lawrence Krubner (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Thursday, February 20 @ 22:32:29 CET | You still fail to see/answer the questions the other poster raised. When did they do that review? What version are they referring to? What is the basis of their assessment? What gives Nessus the right/authority to say what they do and who really cares? I don't - unless/until I see the basis of their assessment. They might well have said the same thing about PN before the flurry of patches. Timing is everything.
Postnuke comes out with patches - so does phpNuke. Your arguments are strawman arguments. They are two different, yet alike, applications. They both have flaws, security and otherwise. FB is no more/less arrogant than HZ. They both need to tame their egos.
You are the one who stated the Nessus item was 'interesting'. To me, that's about as valid as saying the original post referring to the old PN version is 'interesting'. They are both old and outdated. Much as your rehashing your ought with FB is - old and outdated. Let it go. |
| Parent | | | | | |
|