full-disclosure-uk August 2008 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > full-disclosure-uk archives
full-disclosure-uk: Re: [Full-disclosure] Media backlash begins

Re: [Full-disclosure] Media backlash begins against HD Moore and I)ruid

From: TJ <trejrco_at_nospam>
Date: Wed Aug 06 2008 - 19:43:39 GMT
To: <full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk>

Note that the costs being discussed were purely financial, and you rushed headlong into adding human lives.
That is, to be polite (if blunt) - wrong.

The "cost" conversation is actually how real decisions are made, in the real world.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: full-disclosure-bounces@lists.grok.org.uk [mailto:full-disclosure-
>bounces@lists.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of n3td3v
>Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 3:36 PM
>To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk
>Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Media backlash begins against HD Moore and
>On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 7:57 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:40:32 BST, n3td3v said:
>>> Are you suggesting HD Moore had prior knowledge that the Austin Texas
>>> AT&T servers were vulnerable?
>> No - simply saying that either they were vulnerable, or they weren't.
>> If they weren't vulnerable, HD didn't have to do anything. And even
>> if they *were*, somebody would still have to actually *attack* them.
>> And even if they *got* attacked, it's quite possible that the upsides
>> of not bothering to do something outweighed the risks. If you
>> estimate that the cost (including "things you could have spent your
>> time doing") is more than the losses, why bother? "Even if we *got*
>> whacked, we'd lose maybe $500. But in the time I'd waste dealing with
>> the issue, I could generate something that will get us $2,000 in
>> revenue. So if I fix it, I lose $1500, and if I ignore it, I come out
>$1,500 ahead if we get hit, and $2,000 if we don't".
>Is what you're describing not against the law Valdis, it sure sounds like
>to me. Some kind of gross negligence...
>Is this what goes on at Virginia Tech on a regular basis? Maybe the
>authorities should be looking into you a lot more while they are looking
>into HD Moore. ;)
>I wonder if the the intelligence services thought like you before 9/11 and
>7/7 eh...I get the feeling they did.
>For sure people like you who support this kind of activity should be
>investigated. It sounds criminal.
>Have you ever carried out this kind of activity Valdis where you put
>security and people at risk to make and/or save money?
>If cyber-terrorism is going to become a real threat, we don't need people
>like Valdis around and we should sure keep track of him.
>Would you allow a cyber-9-11 to happen Valdis if there was money involved?
>I'm starting to become worried about you dude, maybe I should be e-mailing
>the folks at Virginia Tech this thread, and perhaps, just perhaps the F.B.I
>and see what they think about what you've just told me.
>You seem to be normalizing what you've just described to me as normal run-
>of-the-mill legal activity, when it clearly isn't.
>To me what you've just described is illegal, criminal and wrong.
>All the best,
>Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/