He (main developer) must read the code. I think...
Why? Ofcourse main developer knows most throughoutly the code, but again main developers hasn't written all of the code and for specific occasions he can use code that is already done, why invent wheel again etc... That also means there CAN be stupidities like this, but open source means also that anyone CAN spot the problem and report or fix it himself...
He (main developer) must read the code. I think...
Why? Ofcourse main developer knows most throughoutly the code, but again main developers hasn't written all of the code and for specific occasions he can use code that is already done, why invent wheel again etc... That also means there CAN be stupidities like this, but open source means also that anyone CAN spot the problem and report or fix it himself...
First version (three years ago: http://svn.dd-wrt.com:8000/dd-wrt/browser/src/router/shared/defaults.c?rev=1 ) contains these IPs.
Last year, after "some refactoring for better editing and structuring" the "new" code contains IPs too, firewall.c (last lines in start_firewall() function) insert these rules -- since 04.18.2007 (rev. 6627).
Testing/customer-requested modifications could NOT include into the mainstream source, or must exactly comment, use specific ifdef statement, etc. And what kind of "customer" need an unremovable firewall rule?
How can we know that? And again, the god damn stuff is fixed, no point to shout endlessly about it now...
If the correct fix (start_firewall() and stop_firewall() in firewall.c, and -of course- defaults.c) will be in latest release (e.g. 24-sp2), then will be fixed, not before.
How can we know that? And again, the god damn stuff is fixed, no point to shout endlessly about it now...
If the correct fix (start_firewall() and stop_firewall() in firewall.c, and -of course- defaults.c) will be in latest release (e.g. 24-sp2), then will be fixed, not before.
You can use "DD-WRT v24-sp1 (08/05/0 std - build 10108M TNG Eko" right now...
How can we know that? And again, the god damn stuff is fixed, no point to shout endlessly about it now...
If the correct fix (start_firewall() and stop_firewall() in firewall.c, and -of course- defaults.c) will be in latest release (e.g. 24-sp2), then will be fixed, not before.
You can use "DD-WRT v24-sp1 (08/05/0 std - build 10108M TNG Eko" right now...
This is the right way to do it. Post a security advisory! I would expect the dd-wrt organisation should be this much professional.
Organization? This is a community, not a company. Sure we can expect some level of professionalism out of the developers but I think you guys are taking this a little too seriously. If you don't want to use the TNG release then add a couple rules to your firewall dropping those IPs and be on your way.
Organization? This is a community, not a company. Sure we can expect some level of professionalism out of the developers but I think you guys are taking this a little too seriously. If you don't want to use the TNG release then add a couple rules to your firewall dropping those IPs and be on your way.
I have problem to see that this is a pure community project. Another thing is that I've seen somebody here refer to customer specific adjustments in the code. I have never ever heard of a pure community project having both customers, customer specific adjustments nor a web shop where you also can buy the same or a similar version of the product.
How I see it, this is a combined project, with one part being community based and one part being commercial focused. Behind a commercial approach, it usually is an organisation of a kind. And the community work would most probably be implemented in the commercial version, and I would expect, with added quality control.
Anyway, I would never ask for money back when I haven't paid for it, so please save your sarcasm for better moments.