does it matter who ur system is hacked by? no. ur system is had
either way. it doesnt belong 2 u.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 3:42 AM, Mike C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Joel Helgeson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree - the biggest BS term in existence is the term
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Joel Helgeson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree - the biggest BS term in existence is the term Cyberterror. If my
web server crashes, is it the result of a Jihadist? Do I care?
Yes! The kind of exploiter decides the kind of evil thing that would
be done from a
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 18:17:22 GMT, andrew.wallace said:
I think we should push for this so that attack platforms that are
designed for penetration testers aren't used by the bad guys.
Another good article noted by Bruce Schneier:
] Security industry software license
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Joel Helgeson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree - the biggest BS term in existence is the term Cyberterror. If
my
web server crashes, is it the result of a Jihadist? Do I care?
Yes! The kind of exploiter decides the kind
2008/12/2, j-f sentier [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Mike C, Andrew wallace, n3td3v (which are the same person), would you
please get the fuck out of this FD list ?
No one want to hear your bull-shit anymore around here.
2008/12/2, Mike C [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:50 PM,
-
From: Some Guy Posting To Full Disclosure [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Security industry software license
Just to summarise what's been said and what I think so we can get back
on topic
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:17 AM, andrew. wallace
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Now what the DHS need to do
if they want to counter hackers and cyber terrorism is to focus on
worth while things like developing a security industry software
license scheme that vets everybody using software and
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Kurt Buff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:17 AM, andrew. wallace
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Now what the DHS need to do
if they want to counter hackers and cyber terrorism is to focus on
worth while things like developing a security
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:52 AM, andrew. wallace
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Kurt Buff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:17 AM, andrew. wallace
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Now what the DHS need to do
if they want to counter hackers and cyber
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:52 AM, andrew. wallace
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Kurt Buff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:17 AM, andrew. wallace
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Now what the DHS need to do
if they want to counter hackers and cyber
Oh well.
Let's reverse this, the problem is not metasploit, because metasploit is not
a 0days finder.
Metasploit is develloped for well know vulnerability, and it's intended for
penetration purpose.
So if some lazy sys-admin doesn't patch them software, it's close to them
own fault if they get
Just to summarise what's been said and what I think so we can get back
on topic, and conclude something:
No-one hacks using metasploit! Go back to 2003.
Terrorists with metasploit! What to you have a picture in your head of
Mr. Jihad Bigbeard using metasploit to shutdown a powergrid?
Reasons Why
You do care
That is why you replied
On 10/21/08, n3td3v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Either I'm on your list, or I'm not. Make up your mind.
I don't care anymore, I really don't care.
___
n3td3v schrieb:
there should be a central license that people apply for to use
software like metasploit.
Well. There's. It's called competence. Clueless people don't use
Metasploit. Normally it doesn't lower the bar very much. Think of Core
or Canvas. You can get this too, nevertheless it's
lets talk about who is trying to ruin who with false accusations..
you
vs
pauldotcom
joel esler
hdm
isc
marc sachs
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 12:08 AM, n3td3v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
tell valdis to leave me alone then and stop trying to ruin my
reputation with false accusations.
On Sun, Oct
* I'm not a criminal
right.
* I'm not mentally ill
lie.
* I'm not a terrorist
no, but u r trying hard 2 b.
* I'm not an elite hacker
nd u never will b.
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter:
r u talking 2 urself?
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:47 PM, n3td3v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
stop pretending to be me.
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 3:11 PM, n3td3v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter:
we simply point out the truth. u r the 1 who proves us right.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:09 AM, n3td3v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no thanks to robert lemos, neal krawetz, valdis kletnieks, michael
simpson, ureleet and others.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:00 AM, Freeman Y. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Salut, Valdis,
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:45:21 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You *really* don't want to follow that idea to its logical conclusion.
Evil bread-eating terrorists.
Tonnerre
--
SyGroup GmbH
Tonnerre Lombard
Solutions Systematiques
Tel:+41 61 333 80
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 04:05:41 BST, n3td3v said:
you're not a member of the group but you *think* you know everything
that goes on inside it,
try being a member of the group first, before you comment on it so publicaly.
...
you're subscribed on a random user email address and are stealthily
The fact of the matter is, the group doesn't really exist. It's mainly just me
sending emails to myself about how 1337 I am...but I know I'm lying.
To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:45:22 -0400
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] security
stop pretending to be me.
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 3:11 PM, n3td3v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Either I'm on your list, or I'm not. Make up your mind.
I don't care anymore, I really don't care.
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:37:59 EDT, n3td3v said:
I've realized that I don't really understand what Metasploit is or does and
generally have a weak grasp on the security industry as a whole. So, please
disregard any of my previous, ignorant comments.
I have to
Dear,
Sorry I did a mistake about the price. The price is 2500 $ for this exploit.
- Original Message -
From: wishi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] security industry software license
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 16:01:05 +0200
That's the proof: Trolling causes braindamage!
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Kathib Karffi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Dear,
Sorry I did a mistake about the price. The price is 2500 $ for this
exploit.
I think that's the proof.
--
Razi Shaban
That's the proof: braindamage causes Trolling !
fix'd
--
Razi Shaban
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 1:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'n3td3v' is the mailing list for fans (fictitious and otherwise) of 'clueness
newb' humor.
you're not a member of the group but you *think* you know everything
that goes on inside it,
try being a member of the group first, before you
n3td3v wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 1:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'n3td3v' is the mailing list for fans (fictitious and otherwise) of 'clueness
newb' humor.
you're not a member of the group but you *think* you know everything
that goes on inside it,
try being a member of
tell valdis to leave me alone then and stop trying to ruin my
reputation with false accusations.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 5:05 AM, Freeman Y. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds like stalking to me..
Do everybody a favor and just stop posting to this list unless you have
something constructive to
n3td3v wrote:
tell valdis to leave me alone then and stop trying to ruin my
reputation with false accusations.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 5:05 AM, Freeman Y. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds like stalking to me..
Do everybody a favor and just stop posting to this list unless you have
no thanks to robert lemos, neal krawetz, valdis kletnieks, michael
simpson, ureleet and others.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:00 AM, Freeman Y. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Believe it or not n3td3v, your reputation is ALREADY ruined.
You seem not to have noticed though.
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:41:02 BST, n3td3v said:
... that criminal hackers use metasploit as well.
Criminals use gmail too. n3td3v uses Gmail. Therefor
Criminals use the phone too. n3td3v probably knows how to use the phone.
Therefor...
Criminals use beds to sleep. n3td3v probably uses a
@lists.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] security industry software license
the double edged sword of metasploit continues. while we acknowledge
its a double edged sword, does that mean we don't need to monitor the
bad edge of that sword? that is the point n3td3v has been making
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:37:59 EDT, n3td3v said:
I've realized that I don't really understand what Metasploit is or does and
generally have a weak grasp on the security industry as a whole. So, please
disregard any of my previous, ignorant comments.
I have to conclude that n3td3v has fallen
I hope you choke on your anti-depressants and drown in your own
vomit you fucking cunt.
That was just rude. Netdev is a delusional paranoiac with a need to be
accepted for what he's worth.
Oh yeah, I forgot. I filtered him out a long time ago.
I still love the Doonesbury-esque quality of his
well 'netdev' is supposed to be a bit of fun, there is no need for
this kind of 'serious' response all the time.
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia -
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, n3td3v wrote:
an *evil deeds* website and no privacy policy? c'mon, who are you
trying to kid? oh yeah, the kiddies...
And apparently, one of them has fallen prey - hook, line, and sinker
You've been on about this for awhile now, please don't further
flog the carcass
--
the double edged sword of metasploit continues. while we acknowledge
its a double edged sword, does that mean we don't need to monitor the
bad edge of that sword? that is the point n3td3v has been making.
and in a news report today by cnet news, they acknowledge:
On Thursday, new code was put
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 7:37 AM, AaRoNg11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Society doesn't care, just n3td3v :P
Why does society care about doing this?
Or is it just that you can't figure out how to use it, so you don't want
others to have access to it?
--
Aaron Goulden
--
Aaron Goulden
we don't know if metasploit is already passing the download data to
the government, i mean, do they have a privacy policy on their web
site? nope. we just need to make that download data useful.
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter:
i have recieved a tip off that says metasploit has no privacy policy
and folks downloading from metasploit are possibly being dhs'd.
we know that the authorities has set up,
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10066001-83.html, websites in the
past to catch out the bad guys.
my informant also says,
i was joking i dont have an informant who told me that stuff, but i
thought it was pretty funny anyway.
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia -
metasploit http://metasploit.com/ should get a privacy policy though,
if they want to be taken seriously by the kiddies...
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:47 PM, n3td3v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i was joking i dont have an informant who told me that stuff, but i
thought it was pretty funny anyway.
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:16:01 BST, n3td3v said:
metasploit http://metasploit.com/ should get a privacy policy though,
if they want to be taken seriously by the kiddies...
But *you* already seem to be taking it seriously. And I doubt that HD Moore
cares whether the other kiddies take it
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:15:16 BST, n3td3v said:
i have recieved a tip off that says metasploit has no privacy policy
and folks downloading from metasploit are possibly being dhs'd.
Do the world a favor, and use whatever grey stuff hasn't leaked out of
your cranial cavity and *think* for a
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:15:16 BST, n3td3v said:
i have recieved a tip off that says metasploit has no privacy policy
and folks downloading from metasploit are possibly being dhs'd.
Do the world a favor, and use whatever grey stuff
If you're going to continue having conversations with yourself I highly
recommend switching to an IM client. It will provide you with more immediate
gratification and the rest of us with peace and quiet and relevance. But
whatever, I just remembered Gmail can filter, silly me. Goodbye n3td3v and
I never had a conversation with myself, its called *adding a bit more on*.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:44 PM, vulcanius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're going to continue having conversations with yourself I highly
recommend switching to an IM client. It will provide you with more immediate
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:16:01 BST, n3td3v said:
metasploit http://metasploit.com/ should get a privacy policy though,
if they want to be taken seriously by the kiddies...
But *you* already seem to be taking it seriously. And I
he can't advertise his latest software as *evil deeds* without a
privacy policy, it sounds a bit *entrapment*.
i was suprised though when i went to the metasploit site, scanned the
footer of all the pages on his site with my eyes, and saw no privacy
statement/policy.
i don't care if hd moore and
no privacy policy on metasploit web site = bad news for script kiddies. rejoice!
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:43 AM, n3td3v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
he can't advertise his latest software as *evil deeds* without a
privacy policy, it sounds a bit *entrapment*.
i was suprised though when i went
Dude, do you ever just shut the fuck up? Even though the content of your
emails is of null value, it must take time to write all this junk so I am
thinking you must have some severe anxiety issues, agoraphobia or are just
plain old demented to consistently write whatever bullshit comes into your
So take it up with him like a man and not on our inboxes...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 08:51:33 -0400 n3td3v [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 1:28 PM, M. B. Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And by the way, why insistently and specifically targeting
Metasploit?
i don't like hd moore
automobile
manufacturers, as well as other economic factors.
G
- - Original Message -
From: Freeman Y. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: n3td3v [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] security industry software
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Michael Simpson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* I'm not a criminal
Just because you haven't been caught doing something illegal doesn't
mean you are haven't engaged in illegal acts
mike thinks i carry out illegal acts
* I'm not mentally ill
BZZZT! Wrong
On 10/14/08, n3td3v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Michael Simpson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* I'm not a criminal
Just because you haven't been caught doing something illegal doesn't
mean you are haven't engaged in illegal acts
mike thinks i carry out
* I'm not a criminal
Just because you haven't been caught doing something illegal doesn't
mean you are haven't engaged in illegal acts
* I'm not mentally ill
BZZZT! Wrong
Checkout your psychopathology in DSM-IV.
* I'm not a terrorist
Certainly not in the classic model but where does the
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:03:50 BST, n3td3v said:
The FBI should investigate me as well, you can't have someone like me
not investigated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
pgphnLMkET8ON.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 1:28 PM, M. B. Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And by the way, why insistently and specifically targeting Metasploit?
i don't like hd moore
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter:
Again,
you're trying to solve an issue looking at the consequences, whereas
your license scheme suggestion should lay on the causes;
as I wrote before, focusing consequences in this case, brings along no
easy solutions.
And by the way, why insistently and specifically targeting Metasploit?
That
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 3:16 AM, Paul Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For what it's worth, the FBI now does not need a reason to investigate
anyone:
http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/blogpost/20081006broaderfbipower
snowsetinstone
Enjoy!
- - ferg
The FBI should investigate me
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Michael Simpson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/14/08, n3td3v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Michael Simpson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* I'm not a criminal
Just because you haven't been caught doing something illegal doesn't
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 3:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:03:50 BST, n3td3v said:
The FBI should investigate me as well, you can't have someone like me
not investigated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
hahahaha
Mike,
you're a good troll, now GTFO.
n3td3v
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Michael Simpson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* I'm not a criminal
Just because you haven't been caught doing something illegal doesn't
mean you are haven't engaged in illegal acts
* I'm not mentally ill
BZZZT!
metasploit doesn't do enough to stop the bad guys downloading it,
infact metasploit does nothing to stop the bad guys downloading it.
half the reason is because they don't need to, there are no laws in
place to say, *you need to do more*
___
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:57:45 BST, n3td3v said:
half the reason is because they don't need to, there are no laws in
place to say, *you need to do more*
Please explain the *full* cost-benefit analysis of passing such a law,
taking into account the following:
1) The fact that the Internet is
On 10/13/08, n3td3v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 2:58 AM, vulcanius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you honestly believe such a thing could ever happen or are you just
speculating for no reason?
No I wasn't on drugs when I wrote this email... but mike simpson my
new
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Michael Simpson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you appear to be the one desperate to meet up
if you want to meet up to sort out your issue, then arrange a
date...im sick of you spear targeting me, fuck off.
lol you wanna hurt me :-)
you would most likely just be
Dear n3td3v, the dreamer,
concerning your suggestion -- which is a noble one -- in a wider context,
you'd better start with two things:
* writing a whole new set of protocols to be used over a whole new
independent backbone infrastructure; and
* convincing the world to forget about TCP.
Any OSI-based set, but without enforcing security-through-obscurity concepts.
Maybe adapting some Bell-LaPadula ideas.
There are lots of models to discuss about. The real question however is:
can we start fresh?
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Buhrmaster, Gary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Michael Simpson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/13/08, n3td3v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 2:58 AM, vulcanius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you honestly believe such a thing could ever happen or are you just
speculating for no reason?
No
The intelligence about who downloads metasploit is already there, but
currently it is not actionable intelligence.
The license scheme would start to make that intelligence actionable,
without the scheme, you've got intelligence sitting there that can't
be used in an actionable way.
Its all about
So are you talking about Actionable Intelligence? Why should the
government be gathering any intelligence on me unless I am the target
of an investigation? Maybe I should also have to register my I.D. to
any device that I connect to the Internet. I bet that would provide
lost of actionable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 6:43 PM, rysheve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So are you talking about Actionable Intelligence? Why should the
government be gathering any intelligence on me unless I am the target
of an investigation? Maybe I should also have
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, n3td3v wrote:
there should be a central license that people apply for to use
software like metasploit.
Oh, do not forget a central license to use a debugger and a central
license to read a book. [1] Not to mention a central license to think.
[1]
It would be a good way for the government to leverage control of
hackers and the people who use their tools though. Disclosure Scotland
is already in operation, all you need is a new law to say everyone who
uses security software must get a Disclosure Scotland background check
first.
I think the
The economics alone of such a set of laws is enough to realize how
unrealistic it is. Not to mention the privacy concerns, international laws,
enforcement, etc. In the perfect world of your imagination this might just
work but in the real world it's an absolutely ridiculous idea. Do you
honestly
This always has been, and still is, a stupid idea.
n3td3v wrote:
It would be a good way for the government to leverage control of
hackers and the people who use their tools though. Disclosure Scotland
is already in operation, all you need is a new law to say everyone who
uses security
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 2:58 AM, vulcanius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you honestly believe such a thing could ever happen or are you just
speculating for no reason?
I believe the government might be considering such a scheme, although
im just throwing the idea out there for people to comment
The only thing this would serve to do is cause cracked versions of tools
such as Metasploit and other security scanners to be put up on sites like
the pirate bay. Then, what about if somebody coded their own security
tool? Would they have to have a license to use it?
This whole idea goes against
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 9:47 AM, AaRoNg11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A licensing system of this size would cost millions, if not billions to
implement.
What's a few million here, a few billion there in the name of national
security? Money hasn't stopped the Department of Homeland Security
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:47 PM, n3td3v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's a few million here, a few billion there in the name of national
security? Money hasn't stopped the Department of Homeland Security
implement far more stupider things in the past. No, I don't think
money is the issue here,
I really don't understand how you even think this idea has any chance of
succeeding. You obviously didn't read my response properly; not only did I
address issues of money, but also the fact that it would be absolutely
impossible to implement such a system due to existing infrastructures and
lack
there should be a central license that people apply for to use
software like metasploit.
You don't want to go there.
let's go there anyway, and if hd moore doesn't comply, we can just
slap some sort of law on the license to make it against the law not to
require that downloaders have the
let's go there anyway, and if hd moore doesn't comply, we can just
slap some sort of law on the license to make it against the law
not to
require that downloaders have the license.
While we are at it, why don't we just impose government
restrictions on all security related books and since a lot
On 10/10/08, n3td3v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
there should be a central license that people apply for to use
software like metasploit.
You don't want to go there.
let's go there anyway, and if hd moore doesn't comply, we can just
slap some sort of law on the license to make it against
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
let's go there anyway, and if hd moore doesn't comply, we can just
slap some sort of law on the license to make it against the law
not to
require that downloaders have the license.
While we are at it, why don't we just impose government
restrictions
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Michael Simpson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
oh you're awake
1430 start today then
not bad
anyhoo
you're showing signs of stalking and obsession over n3td3v, maybe its
you who should get check out for mental instability, mr NHS mental
health guru.
you're
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n3td3v
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 10:39 AM
To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] security industry software license
let's go there anyway, and if hd moore doesn't comply, we can just
slap some sort of law on the license
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Recall that government licenses historically serve mainly to limit the size of
a field and enrich those who get licensed, and exclude a number of competent
people.
Personally I do not favor such measures...speaking for myself here.
Do you really think that the bad guys wouldn't be able to obtain
Metasploit if they really wanted to..?
Come on, you're talking about hackers here.
Anything and everything can be a weapon, in the wrong hands. A
screwdriver can be lethal, but it is also used to turn screws.
Better to make the
there should be a central license that people apply for to use
software like metasploit.
all the *respected* programmers would require the license before you
get to download.
anyone can apply for a licence, however only those who meet the
criteria get given the licence.
background checks are
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 02:31:06 BST, n3td3v said:
there should be a central license that people apply for to use
software like metasploit.
You don't want to go there. They start requiring licenses to have Metasploit
or Snort or Nessus, it's a slippery slope, and they'll start requiring a
94 matches
Mail list logo
