Actually, tjhat makes a fair amount of sense. You're not alone. =) This is kind of the tangent I was going on when I seemed to start this whole thing. I figured by having a copy, I could help the person requesting info, as well as being aware of it myself.
*shrugs* To each their own I guess. -- Peace. ~G On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:31:13 -0700 (PDT), VX Dude <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Personally I think this thread is starting to get off > topic. But I'd like to address a topic that got > brushed aside by this penis contest. > > Viruses/Malware/Rogue Code on Full-Disclosure > > I know this gets addressed every 2 months (you can > calibrate your NTP server by it). But it's an issue > that should have some actual discussion on, and not > just waved off with a few remarks. > > Since most of the people reading this knows what > Full-disclosure is, I wont pretend that you don't. > > How many times have we (the admins, the incident > responce guys, and the help desk techs) had to respond > to a virus outbreak without any help from antivirus > companies? Even when we pay them thousands of dollars > in support contracts, the best information we get is > "the diffinitions will be posted at so and so time". > Wouldn't it be nice for once if one admin see's > malware, and alerts everyone else? So we know what > subject line and attachments to block? Isn't this the > spirit of FD? > > The "only trust the established antivirus > corporations" line of thinking is (to me) just like > saying "only vendors should release information about > bugs". Am I alone in this thinking? > > Shouldn't it become a standard FD practice to send the > list a copy of new malware that the "AV professionals" > haven't told us about? How much of your security > budget could be saved if you weren't in the blind > about the viruses already hitting your networks. > Could FD style virus information be of help for those > first critical hours? > > I have a sad feeling that I am alone about this. If I > am, then I really pity you guys. > > Stinny FranCisco, CISSP > Internet Sniper > eDefense Inc. > > --- Nick FitzGerald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Bugtraq Security Systems wrote: > > > > > Nick, > > > You're a moron, and a fake moron at that. ... > > > > Lessee -- "fake" means "not". > > > > So, in case it is not already obvious to you, your > > statement thus > > reduces to an outright contradiction. > > > > What a surprise. > > > > NOT! > > > > I wonder who is the real moron here then? > > > > > ... If you had the clue god gave the > > > average scriptkiddie, ... > > > > Fortunately, I have much more than that, as you have > > already, so > > adroitly, proved. > > > > Go crawl back under your rock... > > > > > ... you'd kill yourself in shame at your own > > postings. > > > > Following your example, perhaps? > > > > > Cheers, > > > BUGTRAQ Security Systems > > > "If Nick FitzGerald had a brain cell for every bug > > we tracked, ... > > > > Again, I am rather fortunate to weigh in > > considerably on the upside of > > that equation... > > > > > ... he'd be > > > smart and not an arrogant no-nothing like he is > > now." > > > > ...so I should be considerbaly "smart" and > > considerably "not an > > arrogant no-nothing" [sic], yet you then turn around > > and contradict > > yourself again. > > > > Fool -- if you're going to call folk names, at least > > decide what those > > names will be before hitting send on a screw-up of a > > message such as > > your last attempt... > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Nick FitzGerald _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
