full-disclosure - Re: NorfolkDesign.com proven track of excellence

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]

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:06:39 -0600
From: "Nate McFeters" <nate.mcfeters@...il.com>
To: Full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: NorfolkDesign.com proven track of excellence

Stop the madness!

I'm going to conduct an expirament... I'm going to send an email to the list
with several stupid comments, three comments that have nothing to do with
what FD was created for, and several points as to why Cross-Site Scripting
is the most dangerous security vulnerability ever and see how many responses
I can get.  Then I'm going to respond to each of them with every email in
the chain, but I won't stop there, I will repeat my original statement with
slightly different linguistic differences, thereby getting myself to the top
of a search engine list.

See Ronnie, you jacked it all up, you should have talked about Cross-Site
Scripting and made several terribly stupid points in addition to your
completely irelevant email, then you would've owned all the search engines.

Seriously, is there a moderator/administrator for this list?  If so, is your
name John like Ronnie says?  If so, hello John, can we get some
moderation/administration please?  Every once in a blue moon there's an
email I get from Full Disclosure that keeps me on the list... could we at
least try to cut down on the crap in between?

Thanks!

On 1/15/08, Nick FitzGerald <nick@...us-l.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Ronnie - Norfolk Design to me:
>
> > All we are trying to do is neutralise false accusations that were made
> about
> > us by a malicious spammer which are appearing in search engines. I have
> > personally contacted John the list administrator and have his full
> > permission to do this.
> >
> > We have a signed letter from the BBC litigation department confirming
> that
> > the accusations are completely untrue.
> >
> > I really hope all members understand, and offer my sincerest apologies
> for
> > any inconvenience this is causing but it's our only option.
> >
> > Kindest regards
> > Ronnie Zahdeh
> > Norfolk Design
> > Limits are in the mind, not on the web.
> > E-mail: ronnie@...folkdesign.com
> > Website: http://www.norfolkdesign.com
> >
> > The information contained in this email is sent from Norfolk Design and
> is
> > intended to the addressed recipient(s) only. The content is confidential
> and
> <<snip>>
>
> I (loosely) understand your grievance.
>
> I disagree with your choice of methods to "correct" it.
>
> Sending the same message to this list at least three times, and now
> largely repeating that message but not in the pseudo-legalistic mumbo-
> jumbo some cheap lawyer scribbled on the back of an envelope in the bar
> the night before last does not help make you look like a victim.
>
> Pairing it with a totally nonsensical pseudo-legalistic "disclaimer",
> probably programmatically attached to all Email sent out from your
> company Email server beyond your control, just make you look even
> sillier.
>
> _That_ is what I was pointing out.  I don't give a rat's arse about
> your perceived slandering or even the (initial) steps you've taken to
> "correct" it (as, it seems, you see this farce).  I start to care when
> you needlessly repeat yourself _especially_ when you couple all that
> with your nonsensical, legally meaningless and uneforceable,
> "disclaimers"
>
> Rather than wasting your and our time trying to further justify your
> increasing nonsense, go spend a few quid on a _competent_ IT lawyer and
> ask him why folk are making fun of your Email "disclaimers"...
>
> (I suspect you'll have trouble deciding if any given lawyer you choose
> to consult about this is "competent" to provide such advice, but as a
> rough rule of thumb, if they don't suggest drastic changes to
> (generally, blanket removal of) your current "disclaimer", their
> opinion is not worth paying for.)
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Nick FitzGerald
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/