On 10/10/06, darkcube <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Good for you, follow the proper disclosure procedures. You can't expect for me (or anyone else) to just take your word for it. When I say validity, I mean that these vulnerabilities haven't been verified by a reliable authority.
I didn't realize I had misspelled anything is the previous post. If I did, then I apologize.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Brad Causey wrote:
> At this point the accusations made at toorcon have no validity to them. They
says you.
i'm staring at an IDA window that says otherwise.
Good for you, follow the proper disclosure procedures. You can't expect for me (or anyone else) to just take your word for it. When I say validity, I mean that these vulnerabilities haven't been verified by a reliable authority.
> Firefox. However, I think this a good shock to the community. Just because
> something is open source and holds the number two slot for the browser
> marketshare, doesn't make it bulletproff. People have a bad habbit of
> assuming that because it's not Microsoft that it is super secure.
that's such an awesome opinion to be so profoundly formulated and cast
about like any real infosec warrior would!
Thanks??
(btw, fix your fucking spellcheck.)
I didn't realize I had misspelled anything is the previous post. If I did, then I apologize.
- 'cube [DTM/uH/wouldntyouliketoknow?]
_______________________________________________
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/
