[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.61.0701170829120.27682@malasada.lava.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:33:10 -1000 (HST)
From: Tim Newsham <newsham@...a.net>
To: Simon Smith <simon@...soft.com>
Cc: Blue Boar <BlueBoar@...evco.com>,
"K F (lists)" <kf_lists@...italmunition.com>,
Untitled <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>,
bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
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
iDefense
> 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
http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists