9 at 12:17 AM, John Bambenek <mailto:bambe...@gmail.com>> wrote:
We'll take data from **Trusted** sources.
I'm just not going to take a public open mailing list post as
evidence at this point.
chris rollin wrote:
Shon wrote:
Seth,
We'll take data from **Trusted** sources.
I'm just not going to take a public open mailing list post as evidence
at this point.
chris rollin wrote:
Shon wrote:
Seth,
I said it could be, not that it is. Thanks for pointing that out. However,
I
believe the reason they are being
SANS ISC isn't soliciting technical reports, we're interested and
looking at the issue with a particular eye to 4chan's history of pulling
pranks.
Then there is the blocking because of the DoS angle, which I admit,
doesn't seem to fit the facts in this case.
There are AT&T people on this lis
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Jeff Young wrote:
This comes from Lauren Weinstein's list and it's worth a read.
It's a bill introduced into legislation, who knows where and when
and if it will become law but, wow.
http://lauren.vortex.com/Cyber-S-2009.pdf
Something to keep in mind. I don't believe it was McColo that was the
end provider of "badware" per se (and I could be proven wrong), they
simply played the enabling role by hosting it and looked the other way.
Now don't get me wrong, they ought to be kicked offline for
externalizing their co
When there is no law to speak of all that is left is tribal justice.
That doesn't make the problem the tribe, the real problem is the
lawlessness.
It would much rather prefer that we find a way to not let ISPs
externalize their "costs" in taking money from bad people who do nothing
but cause
6 matches
Mail list logo
