full-disclosure - FW: Last Microsoft Patch

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: madsaxon at direcway.com (madsaxon)
Subject: FW: Last Microsoft Patch

At 01:49 PM 10/16/03 +0000, petard wrote:
>You verified Curt Purdy's certification. Congratulations. Now verify that
>Curt Purdy posted the message. (I'm not claiming that he did or didn't,
>and don't know Curt Purdy at all.) You, like the OP, might be putting
>too much trust in where an email says it's from.

People, we all know that certs are meaningful only within a certain
context.  Curt made a simple mistake--he probably posted that before
he fully thought about the issue.  Happens to all of us.  Judging
him by his certs, or vice-versa, is petty and pointless.

I have an idea.  Since we've apparently decided that "full disclosure"
equates to "no real topic control," let's make the best of it by
trying to help each other through infosec issues, not blasting
anyone who posts a misspelled word or a poorly thought-out 
statement/question into their component molecules.  Debates over
the validity of an infosec-related point are useful and constructive;
character assassination and personal attacks are not.

I can't speak for the rest of you, but if people stopped making
mistakes, I'd personally be out of a job.

;-)

m5x