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: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:33:10 -1000 (HST)
From: Tim Newsham <>
To: Simon Smith <>
Cc: Blue Boar <>,
	"K F (lists)" <>,
	Untitled <>,
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] iDefense Q-1 2007 Challenge

>    More importantly, the company that I am working with is no different
> than iDefense. In fact, they both sell their exploits and harvested research
> to the same people. The only real difference is in the amount of money that
> the researcher realizes when the transactions are complete. This difference
> is a direct result of low corporate overhead.
> IDefense is reselling these exploits to the same third parties as the
> business that I work for, or at least I assume that they are. Both 
> and our buyers use the exact same list of software targets.

Is there a reason you are withholding the name of the company you work
with?  Inquiring minds want to know.  We all know about iDefense.
(The added secrecy makes one suspicious...)

>    Lastly, all transactions require that the researcher engage the company
> that I work with in a tight contract. This contract ensures that both
> parties are legitimate and also protects both parties. They don't do that on
> the black market do they?

Surely someone who was going to break one law would have no qualms
about breaking another (ie. contract law)...

Tim Newsham

Powered by blists - more mailing lists