At 11:54 AM +0100 8/9/05, Nick Murison wrote: > (Yes, this is a shameless plug) > > Good morning everyone, > > Seen as the storm after BlackHat has settled a little, I thought it'd be nice > to see what people had decided about Michael Lynn's presentation. Was he > right to go ahead with it, or was it really not his call? > > Judging from the security mailing lists, everyone and their dog has now had > the opportunity to ramble on about the finer details of the situation. At > www.ThreatsAndCountermeasures.com, we just want some straight answers, so we > made it the topic of our latest poll :) > > So go along to https://www.threatsandcountermeasures.com and submit your > vote: > > Was Lynn right to hold his BlackHat talk? > a) Yes, information should be free > b) Yes, to safeguard infrastructure > c) No, to safeguard infrastructure > d) No, he violated IP > e) Don't care
You omitted: f) Not enough information provided to know what on earth you are discussing. -- Larry Kilgallen [Ed. *grin* There were numerous media accounts of the uproar that Michael Lynn generated at the BlackHat conference a week+ ago by disclosing a heap overflow vulnerability (that can lead to execution of arbitrary code on a target system) in Cisco's IOS. Check out http://www.esecurityplanet.com/patches/article.php/3524701 for a short overview, for example. KRvW]
