On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:22 PM, G. D. Fuego <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 5:17 PM, n3td3v <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, my comment above was slightly a drop in the sky to get attention > > of the problem, but look let's concentrate more on something else, > > which you seem to have purposely bypassed and snipped out, even though > > it was one of the key points... > > Can you give a 1-2 sentence description of the problem? I thought we were > talking about security theater. >
The whole topic(s) have obviously swept over your head entirely, and you don't take time to study what is said before you give an obnoxious reply. It looks like for some reason you snipped out the key point: On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:04 PM, n3td3v <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The identify of cars belonging to employees, partners and others > connected could be used against them, be followed off-site for thier > devices to be technically eavesdropped on, or company documentation to > be obtained, by stolen laptop, by breaking into car, by breaking into > personal home space of employee. n3td3v _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
