Paolo Bonzini said: > > This is yet another unsubstantiated position statement. The proof > > of the DoS has been posted several times now in a variety of > > circumstances. > > That's not what a DoS is. Please stop beating this dead horse.
To claim the denial of service to tor users is *not* a DoS is to "beat a dead horse". Your claim was repeated several times already by Alfred, and most recently defeated here: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/security-discuss/2017-03/msg00078.html Your Hollywood/mass-media understanding of DoS is incorrect, and does correspond with the broader meaning used in the security discipline. The security discipline is not just about countering malicious attacks. If someone trips over a power cord and knocks a server offline, even that is a DoS (however accidental). Your unsupported position statement is both irrelevant and desperate. Grasping at straws to have a security problem falsely appear out of scope to laypeople with the same misunderstanding is a waste of time. Even security students with an elementary understanding of the discipline are tought that *availability* is absolutely fundamental to the practice, and that loss thereof is a security problem. I have removed gnu-system-discuss, in my (perhaps over-confident) hope that fewer security-unaware readers will try to beat the same dead horse you are. -- Please note this was sent anonymously, so the "From:" address will be unusable. List archives will be monitored.
