No, you're saying something's a vulnerability without showing any
indication of how it can be abused.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Nicholas Lemonias.
lem.niko...@googlemail.com wrote:
The full-disclosure mailing list has really changed. It's full of lamers
nowdays aiming high.
On
(the fuck you Byron mentioned)
isn't fruitful to remedy the situation.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.com
wrote:
What you said doesn't follow.
Making a digital copy isn't burning down a business. The analogy
linking 'piracy' with theft is ludicrous
What you said doesn't follow.
Making a digital copy isn't burning down a business. The analogy
linking 'piracy' with theft is ludicrous.
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Christian Sciberras uuf6...@gmail.com wrote:
Byron, you don't protest to the government by burning down 100-year-old
Exploits this, maybe?
http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB05-040.html#smb
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:50 PM, xD 0x41 sec...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello List,
Id like people to also, like this thread asks, to pls give some opinion,
other than mine.. wich, i am yet to make;
. This was a war zone, not a country club.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Jeffrey Walton noloa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.com wrote:
Except that they weren't obviously unarmed.
Not only where they not obviously unarmed, they appeared
; and it has no business trying to police
others. The UN Security Council is a joke - it should have stopped the
US a long time ago (an impossibility under its current structure).
Jeff
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.com
wrote:
Obviously not.
Again. They looked
...and the allegation that it was just makes
people look ridiculous.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:05 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 22:44:44 PDT, Mike Hale said:
Seriously! Think about the injustice of having American helicopters
engage armed individuals shadowing American soldiers
Seriously! Think about the injustice of having American helicopters
engage armed individuals shadowing American soldiers.
The inhumanity is heart breaking.
Go troll somewhere else.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Jeffrey Walton noloa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:22 AM,
Probably becuase you've been the biggest troll on this list for the
last few weeks?
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd]
cal.leem...@simplicitymedialtd.co.uk wrote:
And why is that, Paul?
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Paul Schmehl pschmehl_li...@tx.rr.com
Your porn thread among others? Is this is a serious question?
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd]
cal.leem...@simplicitymedialtd.co.uk wrote:
How so?
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.com
wrote:
Probably becuase you've been
http://ploader.net/files/ad1da891a1cef64466a7562879291c30.jpg
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd]
cal.leem...@simplicitymedialtd.co.uk wrote:
Got a screenshot? I only see:
Our apologies
The IBM developerWorks Web site is currently under maintenance.
Jesus, you are such a troll.
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Victor Rigo victor_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
same old useless crap
Victor Rigo, CISSP
Independent Computer Security Consultant
Buenos Aires, AR
+5411-4316-1901
___
Full-Disclosure - We
In fact, I can just make the Domain Admin a guest on my workstation
if I want to and there is nothing they can do about it.
With the caveat that they can readd themselves using GP anytime they
want...but you know. I just wanted to throw that out there.
I think the key vulnerability in this is
That is too fucking funny.
Sometimes schadenfreude comes back to bite you in the ass.
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Cody Robertson c...@hawkhost.com wrote:
On 6/24/10 3:54 PM, T Biehn wrote:
Ouch dude:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/06/23/tor-g20-arrest.html
Guess you ate a
Yeah, Lamo is a complete fucking douche.
That said...Manning is a complete and total moron.
*shakes head*
--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter:
Looks like he rewrote it and clarified what he meant to say.
I think this is a lesson on why you really should proofread stuff and
ask someone else to go over your writings before you publish
something.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Sec News secn...@gmail.com wrote:
Did anyone else see this?
Your comparison doesn't work.
It's not A versus B, it's A versus C, with C being Company does
nothing because it can't afford a thorough security program.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Michel Messerschmidt
li...@michel-messerschmidt.de wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 06:02:48AM -0700, Shaqe
-they are arguing for the fun of it without any real arguments (why else
prove me right on my arguments and later on deny it?)
So you fall into this category?
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Christian Sciberras uuf6...@gmail.comwrote:
In short, you just said that PCI compliance _is_ a waste of
a few lines before that?
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.comwrote:
-they are arguing for the fun of it without any real arguments (why
else prove me right on my arguments and later on deny it?)
So you fall into this category?
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 1:22
is quoting me in a different argument your point?
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.comwrote:
Point is, you're arguing for the sake of arguing, as you have no
understanding what PCI is, based on your own admission.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Christian
at?
Real security, or just a way companies can excuse their incompetence by
citing full PCI compliance?
Which reminds me, it wasn't I that brought anti-viruses to the discussion.
Cheers.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.comwrote:
Actually, you're right
Then, as I said, the PCI requirements are total nonsense...
You say this based on absolutely zero understanding of what the
requirements are, by your own admission?
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Nick FitzGerald
n...@virus-l.demon.co.uk wrote:
Tracy Reed to me:
Anyone authoritatively
Uhm.. No
Uhm, yes?
It's a 'hassle' if:
You don't have a firewall.
You use default passwords.
You don't protect stored data.
You don't encrypt that data in transit.
You don't use antivirus.
You don't restrict data access.
You don't use unique logins.
You don't log stuff.
You don't test your
is money wasted.
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.com
wrote:
I find the findings completely flawed. Am I missing something?
--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe
. I still
don’t really see what all the hubbub is about here.
t
From: Christian Sciberras [mailto:uuf6...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 9:29 AM
To: Thor (Hammer of God)
Cc: Christopher Gilbert; Mike Hale; full-disclosure;
security-bas...@securityfocus.com
Subject: Re: [Full
I actually disagree with the conclusions presented by this paper. I'm
in the process of writing up a more thorough explanation, but my main
issue lies with their key finding on compliance spending.
According to the paper, roughly 40% is spend on directly securing
secrets, and another 40% is
26 matches
Mail list logo
