full-disclosure-uk January 2009 archive
| Main Archive Page > Month Archives > full-disclosure-uk archives |
Re: [Full-disclosure] Why are you against n3td3v?
From: <Valdis.Kletnieks_at_nospam>Date: Sun Jan 11 2009 - 16:51:07 GMT
To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:09:45 GMT, "andrew.wallace" said:
> I can't help if Robert Lemos, Neal Krawetz gave false reports about
> n3td3v, that seems to have damaged us a lot and having to defend my
> position constantly to a bunch of aliases on full-disclosure because
> they believed something that was written in the media and had an
> expectation and when that expectation couldn't be met, they thought
> I'm a lie and a fake and the members of the n3td3v mailing list can't
> be real.
I hate to inject some actual reality, but a few things to consider:
- 'n3td3v' was *already* widely regarded as a troll when Krawetz did his research - he picked 'n3td3v' *specifically because* it was regarded as the biggest security troll since Gobbles.
- I suspect that the vast majority of full-disclosure readers either didn't know or didn't care about Krawetz's posting until you made a point of complaining about it and invoked the Streisand Effect on yourself.
- The high troll factor of 'n3td3v' on the full-disclosure list scared off a very high percentage of the full-disclosure people who concluded that any list of 4,500+ run by a troll/idiot of the caliber seen on full-disclosure *must* be composed mostly of sock puppets and other trolls.
Seriously - go back and re-read your postings over the past several years, and then ask yourself "What would *I* think about this poster if I didn't know who he was?".
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/