> > I usually don't speak to people like you do even after I know them for a couple of years. So, yes I would say you got attitude, but that's beside's the point.
Glad we cleared that up then eh. > > Mate, if you come to a list and be totally vague and asking for access to > peoples servers on this concept of a "anti-security" script you have written > that's expected to be of either some commercial gain for you, or an open > source project then simply lay your cards out on the table and anti-up. > > I did not ask for anything did I, did I ask for any passwords or usernames? No, I only asked if anyone was interested in having their sites tested for possible security holes. And no scripts are run, it's all still in an infant stage. > Don't you think I can find enough URLs on this list to test anything against? I would say so, but I had the courtesy of asking if anyone was interested, I would think that would mean something. > But mate, you have once again proven that not only people outside this list are scared of the word security, and that there is just no unity that can be formed when it comes to security... Like i said, lay down your intentions on the table and maybe my "attitude" won't be as "aggressive" as you assume it is. Personally I'm indifferent to your needs and wants in this matter as too many times i have seen poor suckers get cained by people with so called "good intentions". You preach about the online community needs to tackle security head-on and that we are too cagey for your liking....... Well if you come on a list and ask to use someone's servers as a test bed for you're purposes and then proceed to claim that you "promise" not perform any hidden dark seedy agendas and then follow it up with still no clear and decisive information for us to make an educated and safe decision? ... You wonder why we are cagey? ... hell, in that case.. "hey can someone give me access to their e-commerce gateway server for me to test out some theories i have... i promise not to divert funds to my paypal account...." what do you think the overall response would be... aggressive replies in the nature of "get the F*&( away from here" or... "Sure... go for it..." Hackers common tactic is to work on peoples gullibility and i have seen allot of people fall for stupid mistakes, and so when someone new comes to the list with no real clear identifying signature or Australian attachments whatsoever begins to request access to servers off of people I respect and consider online colleagues? Well hells bells, I apologise for coming on strong... call in the negative evil side within shall we? > I say "thanks for your friendly response, and I will take my knowledge somewhere else, which is TO MYSELF!".. Darn, I'm sure the "knowledge" you have will be sorely missed, especially it being so forthcoming and clear as to what exactly it is we will be all missing out on...? Like I said, if you're intentions are good and you would like to co-work with individuals in working towards blocking some security features in CFMX, I'm all ears (infact I have a few theories myself that could potentially be open slatter for DOS attacks with CFMX). But until that time arrives, consider me a sceptic of you're credibility? and I'll keep you at arms length on this specific matter... should you have an issue CFMX related or something along those lines, I and others would be happy to help no questions asked or "attitude" assigned. > I now understand why this kind of knowledge is not spread among us, it's cause of people like you. Is that a good thing or a bad? ... The jury's out on that one me thinks. --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MX Downunder AsiaPac DevCon - http://mxdu.com/
