m5x, As with most public forums, you've missed the point...
--- madsaxon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 10:45 AM 5/25/2004 -0700, Harlan Carvey wrote: > > >Valdis, > > > >I sincerely hope that you do not presume to speak > for > >everyone... > > He's not offering an opinion, merely stating a fact: > if whitehats are security researchers who don't > break the law, then they don't audit code the > possession of which is illegal. The only > debatable point here is the definition of > "whitehat," > but that's really just a matter of semantics. > This code is the proprietary property of Cisco. > Anyone who knowingly examines it or even possesses > it without Cisco's permission is in violation of > the law in most countries, and therefore not, > by definition, acting as a "whitehat." > > m5x > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
