|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > full-disclosure-uk archives|
Insanity == doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.
If this is true, then
Insane == responding to n3td3v.
So how many on this list meet the definition of insane?
--On Wednesday, August 06, 2008 15:43:39 -0400 TJ <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: email@example.com [mailto:full-disclosure-
>> firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of n3td3v
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 3:36 PM
>> To: email@example.com
>> 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/
-- Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. ******************************************* Check the headers before clicking on Reply. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/