I have not replied to other previous similar message to not feed further this misunderstanding. I am not related in any way to the Windows guys, so I am not quite sure why I should have an interest into "introducing confusion". Relax a bit guys. I am quite aware this a serious matter - What I wanted to convey is that I found that site, and it appeared to be "very legit", only that - maybe on purpose. I may have read or not the previous message, however this one hit the point for me. Regards

Message: 2 Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:11:53 +0200 From: Arran Cudbard-Bell <a.cudbardb@freeradius.org> To: FreeRadius users mailing list <freeradius-users@lists.freeradius.org> Subject: Re: FreeRadius in Windows - was Sourceforge and FreeRADIUS Message-ID: <A19B4586-EB2C-4FA0-8002-AF5919A064E6@freeradius.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

...

You are saying you dont have a Windows version, however I do recall reading some months ago about a Windows paid version too. At the time I *think* it was quite deliberate that it purported to be quite official i.e. your team.

No. That is absolutely incorrect. You have not got that information from either the FreeRADIUS users or FreeRADIUS developers list.

I suspect you are attempting to purposely introduce confusion.

...

If it were not for this email I would not got the slightest idea it was another individual.

Well it is.

This is serious. The GPLv2 violation is secondary. It's quite plausible that the version being distributed on source forge may contain malicious code. It would be fairly trivial to modify the server to forward credentials to a remote site, whether they be from users, or the ones embedded in the configuration.

That's why it's so important from them to publish the actual code used to create the windows binaries, so it can be checked against the code from our repository.

-Arran

Arran Cudbard-Bell <a.cudbardb@freeradius.org> FreeRADIUS development team

FD31 3077 42EC 7FCD 32FE 5EE2 56CF 27F9 30A8 CAA2