full-disclosure - Ron Dufresne rears his head again (was: security industry under scrutiny)

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

From: steve at videogroup.com (Steve)
Subject: Ron Dufresne rears his head again (was: security industry under scrutiny)

On Friday 08 November 2002 12:37 am, dev-null@...id.com wrote:
>> The main point behind the rants of these lame kids is that > once
>> their little hacks and sploit tools are well known and defended
>
>Lame kids...
>*Their* sploit tools...
>
>Aren't we a walking bundle of contradiction?
>
>I agree that it may piss off some "blackhats" when XXX bug
>finds its way onto the security lists 2-3 years later, but
>to say that attacks are well known and defended against
>means not only the end of the computer underground, but the
>end of the security industry. I imagine heavenly security
>professionals such as yourself wouldn't want this scenario
>to transpire.

Then one can concentrate on functionality and leave security concern in 
the rear seat. Since someone in the security industry needs to know his 
way around he won't need any retraining to work. But that's theoretical 
anyway as this will never happen. With every new protocol, every new 
program and every new user (seemingly) new issues comes up that needs 
solving. Only a narrow minded fool would try to keep issues out there 
to have job security. I'm sure the same fool is not very good at what 
he does anyway.

>In summary, the lame kids sending winternet spools and
>home directories around EFNet may get really pissed off
>when they can no longer compromise computer security, but
>their loss in mental stimulation is pale in comparison to
>your monetary losses when Secure Internet puts the security
>industry out of business.

However secure the Internet becomes there will be stupid things and not 
so stupid things that people need help with. If the security industry 
disappeared, security would follow suit anyway, and we'll be back to 
square one.

>It really irks me that a former member of the G-Force
>Pakistan defacing group has the hide to denounce other
>clueless kidiots.

Who knows, maybe criminal pride?

-- 

Steve Szmidt