...and let me remind you, Mr. Terranson, that the majority of information that originates from SANS (primarily from the ISC Daily Handlers Diary, and DSHield.org), is far more substantive that the juvenile B.S. that goes on in this forum most of the time.
But, of course, you knew that already, right? Being a "for-profit" organization is not the Sign of the Beast; the last time I checked, it was a Good Thing (tm), insofar as being truthful, honest, and doing a service to the online community. - ferg p.s. You call that cheap shot "full dsiclosure"? -- "J.A. Terranson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.sans.org/resources/glossary.php While I realize that this is not going to be a wildly popular point, let me remind you that SANS is not the kind of place I would use as an authoritative reference in terms of debate. SANS is a for profit corp., and was run as such even when they were playing possum as a non-profit. They are *not* a "disinterested third party" any more than the anti-virus firms are - and not many people would use *them* as an authoritative reference (assuming of course that there are other sources). -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xBD4A95BF -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.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/
