| 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
| ||
|
From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu) Subject: Re: Know Your Enemy: Tracking Botnets (ThorstenHolz) On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:21:35 +0300, phased said: > > no they didnt, shit paper, nothing new, absolute crap just publicity bollocks (I haven't actually read the paper in question yet, but still..) Notice that often, a "nothing new" paper can still be important just due to readability by an audience other than the technical geeks. For example, it's been *years* since "Smashing the stack for fun and profit" made it all clear for the bitheads among us - but would you give it to your upper management as justification for a project? No, you'd need to find a white paper that had "nothing new" in it, but which stated it in a way that the threat becomes clear even to a manager. And writing something that's accessible by a *novice* sysadmin that has maybe a year or two experience is an entirely different skill.... In fact, for some stuff like the FBI/SANS Top 20 we do every year, or the Center for Internet Security benchmarks, if something is "new", it's almost certainly out of scope - when I did a very early draft of what Hal Pomeranz ended up making into the CIS Solaris benchmark, "Have I heard this point enough times I want to gag" was one of the clearest indicators that something should be in the guidelines... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 226 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20050314/a3e49a01/attachment.bin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists