On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:24:28PM +0100, Christian Sciberras wrote:
Just because someone got busted and found a number of lunatics in providing
mirrors doesn't mean there's a whole industry. If anything, there must be
some
when we reach billions of lunatics YOU will be called a lunatic :)
Ahh, where was my head?!!
Replace lunatic with sheep.
:)
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Georgi Guninski gunin...@guninski.comwrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:24:28PM +0100, Christian Sciberras wrote:
Just because someone got busted and found a number of lunatics in
providing
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:03:56PM +0100, Christian Sciberras wrote:
Ahh, where was my head?!!
Replace lunatic with sheep.
:)
itz all the same, only the namez will change:
when we reach multi billions of sheepz YOU will be called an ``овца'' :)
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:56
I did understand the differences. The main issue is that dangerous
material may be published anonymously without verification or indeed, any
peer review.
Keep in mind that you can easily set off people by telling them a UFO
crashed in the centre of New York, and there are actually those that
Hi all,
i've been writing during past week a concept of leak management system
with the following main differences with wikileaks:
* Concentrate on leak amplification to let leaks reach media
* No editing or publishing
* Fully distributed organizations
* Use best of existing
Nice recipe to easily end up in a ton of trouble and ridicule.
My 2 cents...
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)
li...@infosecurity.ch wrote:
Hi all,
i've been writing during past week a concept of leak management system with
the following main differences
It's a matter of splitting up responsibility among various players and
distributing almost everything.
With the growing number of improvised leak sites and more to come in
future, most doesn't even have a methodology/risk model or fully
understand the level of risks they are taking.
That's just
It's a matter of splitting up responsibility among various players and
distributing almost everything.
Leaking information is not a game, unlike some kids seem to think.
With the growing number of improvised leak sites and more to come in
future, most doesn't even have a methodology/risk
Hi Fabio and others Full-Disclosure readers,
Have you seen how WikiLeaks are editing already released cables?
Seems like WikiLeaks do not believe in Full-Disclosure and WL
partners has already created Ministry of Truth (from Orwell's
final novel 1984).
For example in
On 15/12/10 12.24, Christian Sciberras wrote:
Which kind of trouble you refer to? It's nice to ear about understanding
and risks analysis on that stuff.
Libel, fraud, sharing of illegal material.
Hey, if you're really intent on going along with this, be my guest.
I'll be watching
the
Not to criticitze you but it seems to me that you have not understood
which are the differences.
No problem with that. That's part of the point of discussion.
I did understand the differences. The main issue is that dangerous
material may be published anonymously without verification or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15/12/2010 11:34, Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) wrote:
On 15/12/10 12.24, Christian Sciberras wrote:
Which kind of trouble you refer to? It's nice to ear about understanding
and risks analysis on that stuff.
Libel, fraud, sharing of illegal
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)
li...@infosecurity.ch wrote:
Hi all,
i've been writing during past week a concept of leak management system with
the following main differences with wikileaks:
Concentrate on leak amplification to let leaks reach media
No editing or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
i've been writing during past week a concept of leak management system
Don't people see the irony of systems designed for leaking information
anonymously?
Tillmann
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
14 matches
Mail list logo
