Message-ID: <20020818123505.28171.qmail@email.com>
From: sockz at email.com (sockz loves you)
Subject: (no subject)

Hi Matthew,
The weather here is nice.  Been sunny all day.  Nice day for being in a
good mood.  Hence I've tried to answer all the questions you posed
in an earlier email.

[blah snip blah]
> No, I mean the "discussion" over the values of our attackers, such as has
> ensued from my initial post.  Generally to me, discussion = has some value.
> Some of the "discussion" here does not fit that criterion.  Just take a flip
> through the archives to discover this for yourself.

your idea of discussion seems rather insular.  i suggest broadening your
horizons.
 
> I frankly am not interested in learning about the values of our phrack
> friends
> and I could care less.  I get more useless junk from the e-mails about the
> junk mail than the junk mail itself (which Outlook Express so nicely deletes
> for me now).  The only thing it has to do with security is the target of the
> junk mail.

whitehat using outlook express.  hehe, gotta love the irony in life.

> >of course.  moderating the list would also mean that we couldn't have this
> >discussion, which i feel is important, not for me though, Matthew, but for
> >you.
> 
> I think the discussion is equally important for everyone here, if nothing
> else but
> for clarity, in my case (which I will try to improve in the future)

you're right, you know.  its not just about you.  its about the other people
here too.  you're absolutely right.

> >you need to let go of all these fears that `hackers are trying to get
> >into your system 24/7' and start to embrace concepts like "free thought",
> >"rationality", and "understanding".
> 
> Just FYI, the "fears" are the tools of a certain software company in Redmond
> (cough Microsoft cough).  I don't have such a fear that *everybody* is
> always
> after me, but I need to be ready for the one who gets in.

and do you really think that day is going to come?  cuz i dont.  though if
*they* do, i doubt they'd be using something you're already protected against.
catch my drift?  you're screwed either way.  this whole security business is
just a waste of time.  all you're doing is protecting yourself against script
kiddies, who without whitehats, wouldn't know how to exploit vulnerabilities
in the first place.  IF YOU STOP TELLING PEOPLE WHERE YOUR SYSTEM IS WEAK
THEY WILL STOP TRYING TO ATTACK YOU WHERE YOU ARE MOST WEAK.  its quite
simple, really.
 
> >yeah no i disagree.  i think over the past few days, if anything, real
> >intelligence has hit the list and you're not entirely sure as to how you
> >want to deal with it.
> 
> So, the "real intelligence" is from those advocating moderation?  If I'm
> getting
> what you're

...saying?
short answer: yes.
long answer: hell yes.

> >that's natural, Matthew, you're being intimidated,
> >your standing in the whitehat community seems to you as though it is being
> >threatened.  thats OKAY.  you just have to get past all that fear and start
> >to loosen up a bit.
> 
> You're wrong there.  Frankly, I will not leave the list no matter what they
> do
> to me.  Nothing of mine is threatened, but the progress of the list *is*
> threatened
> if we give in to such pitiful and weak tactics as junk e-mail.

glad to see we have another supporter then.
 
> >>     We must direct our anger towards these losers at these losers.
> 
> >this sentence didn't make sense to me.  could you please clarify?
> 
> Ah, the principle of focus.  Incredible, isn't it?

after reading this sentence four times over i see where you goofed up.
the sentence should read: "we must direct our anger towards these
losers,... at these loosers..."

amazing what a little punctuation can do isn't it :)

> >could you please give an example to back up your views?  because you must
> >realise, Matthew, that we all come from different cultures.  what is a
> >spoiled child to you may be something completely different to the next
> >person.  also, by giving an example, and making your argument clearer, i
> >think you'll find that people will not only understand you more, but also
> >understand you enough that they can retort in a much more informed manner.
> >which helps the discussion overall.
> 
> Okay, I guess I should have put "spoiled children according to my culture"?

no, i understand that you and i are from different subcultures.  that was why
i asked for an example.  so that i can better understand this difference, not
that it simply existed.

> I
> was implying several specific characteristics, but my main argument was that
> one who calls themself a hacker and then resorts to (trivially blocked) junk
> e-mail is both of low maturity and ability as well as simply wanting to feel
> like
> they have done something.

this is much clearer thankyou.  but are you sure it was a spoiled child who
sent you spam, and not just normal advertising?  i mean, there must be dozens
of spam bots trolling through this list for email addresses.  unless you call
automated scripts "spoiled children" too.  see what i mean?  paranoia.

> The concept of full-disclosure *is* having a medium for discussion for all
> that
> are affected, and in a timely manner, correct?

yes i do agree.  i have found Full Disclosure to be more than adequate for
communicating my part of the discussions so far.  i stated this before.
where am i losing you?
 
> >> Are you up for it?
> 
> >up for what exactly?
> 
> I suppose this links with your statement on the battlefield analogy.  What I
> am drawing at is a simple, but incredible thing known as *determination*.

ah but discussion isn't war.  i alluded to this in my previous email.  even
still, i cant help but be provoked by curiosity... why am i up for
determination?

> To those who suggest the answer is moderation of the list -- get a life.

oh i agree.  i'm much prefer to see this list turned into an anti-whitehat
discussion list.  seems like much more of an appropriate place than a newer
list for sure.  i mean, this list is much more known than a list that hasn't
even been created yet.  and its audience is probably more likely to be less
fearful of involving itself, than say, if this list were renamed to "WHITEHAT
HOLOCAUST".  dont you agree?
-- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Powered by blists - more mailing lists