The Plan for CVE-2008-4311

[Colin Walters]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Scott James Remnant
<scott at canonical.com> wrote:

> If we don't want to support such a thing, then my argument is moot ;)
> We should document that the only way to have such private signals is by
> explicit destination when you send it.

Right; I think that would be a reasonable answer, though the binding
state for unicast signals is not very good.  The other answer here is
that you use method calls to unique bus names in the "agent pattern"
that bluetooth uses.

> (ie. all unicast signals are public)

Right.