"At the time the Sendmail program had a very poor reputation with respect to security, with four root vulnerabilities per year for two successive years"
About this Quote
Venema’s sentence lands like a lab report that accidentally reads as an indictment. “At the time” is doing quiet rhetorical work: it pins blame to a specific era while still making the reputational damage feel earned. He’s not dunking on Sendmail for sport; he’s establishing a baseline of risk so stark it becomes a narrative turning point in the history of internet plumbing.
The clincher is the metric: “four root vulnerabilities per year for two successive years.” It’s not “often,” not “many,” not “a lot.” It’s a countable cadence, the kind that makes administrators picture sleepless pager nights and attackers with a calendar. Root vulnerabilities aren’t minor bugs; they’re keys to the kingdom. By quantifying them, Venema translates a fuzzy anxiety about security into an actuarial certainty: compromise isn’t a possibility, it’s a rhythm.
Subtextually, this is also a statement about engineering culture in the early networked world. Sendmail was ubiquitous, complex, and treated as critical infrastructure before “secure by design” became a mainstream expectation. Venema, a scientist known for pragmatic security tools, is signaling the gap between academic elegance, operational necessity, and the messy reality of software that grew faster than its threat model.
Context matters: this is the era when email was becoming indispensable, and the internet’s trust assumptions were collapsing under real adversaries. The line reads like a justification for a new posture: less heroics, more hardening, auditing, and layered defenses.
The clincher is the metric: “four root vulnerabilities per year for two successive years.” It’s not “often,” not “many,” not “a lot.” It’s a countable cadence, the kind that makes administrators picture sleepless pager nights and attackers with a calendar. Root vulnerabilities aren’t minor bugs; they’re keys to the kingdom. By quantifying them, Venema translates a fuzzy anxiety about security into an actuarial certainty: compromise isn’t a possibility, it’s a rhythm.
Subtextually, this is also a statement about engineering culture in the early networked world. Sendmail was ubiquitous, complex, and treated as critical infrastructure before “secure by design” became a mainstream expectation. Venema, a scientist known for pragmatic security tools, is signaling the gap between academic elegance, operational necessity, and the messy reality of software that grew faster than its threat model.
Context matters: this is the era when email was becoming indispensable, and the internet’s trust assumptions were collapsing under real adversaries. The line reads like a justification for a new posture: less heroics, more hardening, auditing, and layered defenses.
Quote Details
| Topic | Privacy & Cybersecurity |
|---|
More Quotes by Wietse
Add to List


