I think it's getting ridiculous. Who cares about bureaucratical terms? I find more and more 'researchers' trying to just be auditors and categorize exploits and try to follow some kind of universal naming convention for exploits that doesn't exist and shouldn't exist. I'd rather see information on exploits and interesting ways to use them than saying it's one type or the other.
This 'scene' is not about politics and terminology for me. On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:01 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > LMAO!! > > Regards; > w0lf > www.maestro-sec.com > -- sent from BlackBerry -- > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd]" > <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 03:23:57 > To: Josey Yelsef<[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] 0-day "vulnerability" > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.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/ >
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
