Paul Schmehl wrote: > Reading comprehension problems? From what he or she posted we have no > idea if the email he or she posted actually exists or not, whether it was > a misunderstanding and Dan had actually gotten permission but it didn't > trickle down to the individual purported to have sent that message to Dan, > etc.,etc. > > IOW, it's a pile of hogwash posted without attribution making a claim that > cannot be investigated, or, as I put it, "selectively publishing on > that.....". Or to put it another way, typical internet bullshit. > > So now you are defending a anonymous accuser posting unattributable emails > making unsubstantiated claims that cannot even be investigated and > claiming that I've done nothing to refute them. The typical "so when did > you stop beating your wife" "reasoning". > > Excuse me if I'm not impressed. > > --On August 2, 2009 7:28:48 PM -0500 ghost <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> and yet still, none of what you posted has anything to do with Dan >> commencing in questionable activities. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Paul Schmehl<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Nothing is more impressive than some anonymous twit attacking someone >>> who does their research under their own name with stolen information >>> they should not have to begin with and then selectively publishing only >>> that which bolsters their supposed case. >>> >>> --On August 2, 2009 12:03:18 AM +0100 Ew0k <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> A friend of mine observed something that I believe should be put on the >>>> table. >>>> While reading the e-mails sent back and forth by Dan Kaminsky, >>>> illegally published on zf05 one of the e-mails caught his eye: >>>> >>>> """ >>>> >>>> Dan, >>>> >>>> >>>> This is another of our clients and you do not have the permission of >>>> the client to perform this kind of scanning. >>>> You have triggered over 22,000 events for us in this range alone as >>>> well as caused a few other minor aggravations. >>>> While you may believe you are a researcher and doing good, performing >>>> your unauthorized testing on live production platforms is a reportable >>>> offense. >>>> I am going to kindly suggest you seek permission from various targets >>>> before you continue your "research". >>>> Please note I am under contractual obligations to report your >>>> activities, we have recorded your "scans" on over 26 devices globally >>>> and none of our clients have given you permission to perform these >>>> "tests" >>>> >>>> """ >>>> >>>> Now, according to this e-mail should Dan's CISSP certification be >>>> revised? >>>> >>> >>> Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already >>> obvious, my opinions are my own >>> and not those of my employer. >>> ****************************************** >>> WARNING: Check the headers before replying >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. >>> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html >>> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ >>> > > > > Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already > obvious, my opinions are my own > and not those of my employer. > ****************************************** > WARNING: Check the headers before replying > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > Actually it can be investigated cause the name and business information from the author is on the e-mail. I'm not questioning Dan's competence, all I'm saying is do CISSP regulations apply to all or just to UNFAMOUS professional?
-- LM - If you're not part of the solutions, you're part of the problem. http://sekuritymatters.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
