full-disclosure - Fwd: GWAVA Sender Notification (Content filter)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date: Tue May 10 10:12:05 2005
From: jftucker at gmail.com (James Tucker)
Subject: Fwd: GWAVA Sender Notification (Content filter)

marketing is a "wonderful" thing.

On 5/10/05, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2005 02:32:41 BST, James Tucker said:
> > Surely this kind of message is a really bad idea.
> 
> You know it, I know it, and the A/V vendors know it.
> 
> > What is the possible true business value of such a filter?
> 
> The true business value is for the A/V vendor, who can blat out a
> free spam to the forged MAIL FROM: address (which is probably scraped off
> a disk by the worm/virus and therefor likely an actual address.
> 
> In this case, the bozos at GWAVA can spam you about finding something they
> didn't consider acceptable.
> 
> > What is the potential impact upon security to disclose the information
> > that this mail does?
> 
> It demonstrates that the site running it is lame enough to still be running
> A/V software that spams people.
> 
> > What is the cost of deployment of this system against the costs
> > related to it's potential, and actual effects?
> 
> The GWAVA people don't care. They've been paid for the product already, and
> they're not the ones paying for the bandwidth.
> 
> Remember - you're talking here about a market segment *founded* on the business
> model that *partially* patching some other vendor's broken software will lead
> to a permanent gravy train. Once you've wrapped your brain around the morals
> and ethics of that business model, it's obviously a very tiny step to spamming
> other people about the wonders of the product.
> 
> 
>