On 11/11/14, 9:25 PM, "Larry Sheldon" wrote:
>On 11/11/2014 15:37, Ricky Beam wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 22:43:09 -0500, Joe wrote:
>>> Generally speaking its best you do what your good at and this is not
>>>it.
>>>
>>> Exposing there is a window open to a gov agency is not hacking, trust
>>
Back a few jobs ago, I had a similar problem with a trucker refusing to do
inside delivery on a 5kVa UPS unit that clocked in around 450lbs, and my
town didn't have any similar moving company willing to schlep that thing
up two flights of stairs on no notice. However, it turns out that you can
dis
Doesn't everyone do that?
NANOG was the list that taught me, twelve years ago, that I would suffer
terribly if I didn't pre-sort individual mailing lists into their own
folders. =)
--
Josh
On 8/19/14, 1:44 PM, "Doug Barton" wrote:
>
> or, learn how to filter e-mail into folders like the b
Don't even joke about that, I can't handle another decade of NAT.
--
Josh
On 5/22/14, 8:55 AM, "Christopher Morrow" wrote:
>On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Jared Mauch
>wrote:
>> I remind vendors when I talk to them, "IPv6 first, then IP
>>classic(tm)".
>
>Coke Classic managed to outlast
>Anybody got recommendations on how to make sure the company you engage
>for the audit ends up sending you critters that actually have a clue? (Not
>necessarily PCI, but in general)
In my previous jobs when I was doing FIPS/NIST/whatever compliance, it
ended up being the case that having a highlig
On 4/30/14, 12:00 AM, "Jeff Kell" wrote:
>Not to mention that PCI compliance requires you are RFC1918 (non-routed)
>at your endpoints, but I digress...
This is emphatically not true. All PCI compliance requires is that your
private IP addresses are not disclosed to the public, which could be
Back about ten years and three companies ago when I was a baby System
Administrator, I made that mistake. Suffice it to say that I HIGHLY
recommend looking for the "authorized reseller" (and getting SMARTNet
up-front--if nothing else, that process will generally reliably inform you
as to Cisco's o
>http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm
>
>This boooklet is now maybe ~5-10 years old so it doesn't reflect more
>recent developments.
>
>We *let* the monopolies (er, duopolies in some cases) get away with the
>regulatory and legislative manipulation that led to the current outcome,
Th
How do you get around the problem of natural monopolies, then? Or should
we be moving to a world where, say, a dozen or more separate companies are
all running fiber or coax on the poles on my street in an effort to get to
my house?
IMHO, the only way to get real competition on the last mile is
On 3/13/14, 7:35 PM, "Larry Sheldon" wrote:
>Not sure I can agree with that. I have been in this game for a very
>long time, but for most of it in places where the world's population
>cleaved neatly into two parts: "Authorized Users" who could be
>identified by the facts that they had ID cards,
On 3/13/14, 1:23 PM, "Barry Shein" wrote:
>A lot of us vowed to try to keep the "hackers" vs "crackers"
>distinction alive in the public's mind but I can't say it worked.
Yeah, that battle had already been lost by the time I entered the field
(even though I tried to fight it for a while anyway.)
On 3/13/14, 12:35 AM, "shawn wilson" wrote:
>A note on terminology - whether you know what you're doing, actually break
>into a system, or obtain a thumb drive with data that you weren't supposed
>to have - it has the same end so I'd refer to it by the same term -
>hacking. Trying to differentia
On 3/12/14, 2:05 PM, "Scott Morris" wrote:
>Perhaps I need to drink moreŠ
If you¹re on this list, that¹s practically a given regardless of
circumstances.
‹Josh
Ha!
³Easy², in my personal experience (having once upon a time caught a hacker
in .ro, but it took six months of work to seal the deal with handcuffs).
--
Josh Sholes
On 3/12/14, 12:37 PM, "Andrew D Kirch" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I found that finding them on IRC, or wherever it is that they
>congreg
Public ipv6 address : firewall :: public street address : locked
door/fence/guard dog
Just because something is public doesn¹t mean you have to accept ALL
traffic, it just means you have to anticipate any potential problems based
on Larry knowing your address rather than imagining him standing at
>The answer is
>not much because I will not and can not break the law, it's unethical
>and wrong.
I invite you to consider the concept of civil disobedience--where the law
is unethical or wrong it can be argued that it's also unethical and wrong
to FOLLOW the law.
I haven't yet been placed in a
On 7/26/13 11:59 AM, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." wrote:
>What happen to the days when you could simply tell someone not
>interested, don't call again and you wouldn't hear from them ever
>again?
>Or the days when everything wasn't treated as spam
When the former days disappeared, the latter
17 matches
Mail list logo
