I'm pretty sure the guy who just told me the world ends in 2012 and that
I must repent now said his name was Linus.
On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 19:20 -0600, don bailey wrote:
> John C. A. Bambenek, GCIH, CISSP wrote:
> > Who's Linus?
> >
>
> I think he is the kid in the Peanuts cartoon
> that carries
please refer to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokes
and possibly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT8uiT_rZ5k
please feel free to laugh, snicker or otherwise enjoy yourself.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Simon Valiquette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John C. A. Bambenek, GCIH, CISSP un jour
> Unless you are very Junior in the computer field (and even then), you
> should have heard of Linus Benedict Torvalds.
Wow, seriously? Clean off the end of your nose.
D
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full
John C. A. Bambenek, GCIH, CISSP wrote:
> Who's Linus?
>
I think he is the kid in the Peanuts cartoon
that carries around the blanket...
D
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted an
John C. A. Bambenek, GCIH, CISSP un jour écrivit:
> Who's Linus?
>
Are you seriously asking that, or just trying to start a "flamefest" (in
which case, looking like clueless is a good attempt).
Unless you are very Junior in the computer field (and even then), you
should have heard of Linus
Who's Linus?
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Simon Valiquette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> coderman un jour écrivit:
> > ... hypothesis that "security researchers" are all masturbating monkey
> > whores is now proven definitively. [0]
> >
> > """
> > Too often, so-called "security" is split into
coderman un jour écrivit:
> ... hypothesis that "security researchers" are all masturbating monkey
> whores is now proven definitively. [0]
>
> """
> Too often, so-called "security" is split into two camps: one that
> believes in nondisclosure of problems by hiding knowledge until a bug
> is fixed
That's my whole point.
On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 13:35 -0400, Dave wrote:
> Wouldn't their press release indicate that they are actually keeping the
> unit intact? After all, it IS the Office of Disinformation.
>
>
> William McAfee wrote:
> > I have to say, the DoD would be crazy not to ramp up AF
Wouldn't their press release indicate that they are actually keeping the
unit intact? After all, it IS the Office of Disinformation.
William McAfee wrote:
> I have to say, the DoD would be crazy not to ramp up AFCYBER. What
> reason on or off Earth do they have to intentionally not protect
> t
I have to say, the DoD would be crazy not to ramp up AFCYBER. What
reason on or off Earth do they have to intentionally not protect
themselves against attack on the network front? It's crazy to leave
yourself vulnerable like that, much less not have a method of offensive
strike. It's like a coun
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:43 AM, Peter Dawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.afcyber.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123110806
>
> seems the cybercommand is not ramping up..
after demonstrating the many ways they (mis)handle information [0] it
would have been amusing had they been able to contin
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:43:11 EDT, Peter Dawson said:
> seems the cybercommand is not ramping up..
A few years ago, the US Dept of Defense admitted that they had an Office
of Disinformation dedicated to feeding bogus info to our enemies. Of course,
there was a public outrage for some reason. The
http://www.afcyber.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123110806
seems the cybercommand is not ramping up..
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:02 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> There's no need as n3td3v got see-throught powa + thight pants
>
> On Mon, 18 Aug 200
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
There's no need as n3td3v got see-throught powa + thight pants
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 02:23:36 +0200 William McAfee wrote:
>Would you mind elaborating on your actual evidence? All I see is
>logic,
>but I do not see much hard fact. I'm not agreeing, I'
14 matches
Mail list logo
