Eric Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wondered about that statement too. So I did a little web > searching. The first site I found about grc & Shields Up! was this > one: > > http://www.grcsucks.com/ > > which led me to this one: > > http://blog.netwarriors.org/d/musings/misc/2002/10/30/shieldsup_analyzed > > It looks like this person used a packet sniffer to see what > exactly Shields Up! does. And it also comments on the language used > on grc.com, which I would agree is really inappropriate (to much > self-importance and hype.) I didn't realize that Shields Up! did as > little as it did. Almost not worth using.
I think that all of this is nothing but a lot of sound and fury. Apparently the Shields Up! guy annoys a lot of people with his excessive verbiage and self-aggrandizement. So, what? I have the ability to ignore all this and use his web-site as the simple port-scanner that it is. I put no more weight into what it tells me than I should from the results of a simple port-scanner. Does HackerWacker do more exhaustive tests? I do not know -- their website requires you to give them your email address, and I hate doing that in this day and age. (Though I suppose I could easily give them a for-spam-only one, I typically hit "back" on the browser as soon as I see any nuisance requirement to register.) |>oug _______________________________________________ bblisa mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bblisa.org/mailman/listinfo/bblisa
