full-disclosure - [inbox] Re: Fwd: Re: Administrivia: Binary Executables w/o Source

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: jasonc at science.org (Jason Coombs)
Subject: [inbox] Re: Fwd: Re: Administrivia: Binary Executables w/o Source

Curt Purdy opined:
> FWIW I disagree with any moderation at all.
> The point is, this is a FREE forum, one of the few left in the world.

I agree completely. The sobig spam is valuable -- it shows us who we should
not trust to operate a computer.

It also reveals the identity of people who have us in their address books
without our consent.

By blocking 2,000+ copies launched at the list we've been saved some bandwidth
but we've been deprived of the opportunity to point and laugh at the people
who subscribe to full-disclosure who got hit by the silly thing.

Just as some people in business refuse to do business with any person or
company who sends spam, some of us also refuse to do business with anyone
incompetent enough to get hit by a virus or worm.

Perhaps Len could send a single digest message to the list revealing the
identity of each subscriber who tried to spam us with a sobig attachment --
it's the least he could do after intentionally covering up for these people.

Jason Coombs
jasonc@...ence.org