full-disclosure - PHC replies to criticism

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]

Message-ID: <20021125002054.GA11711@umr.edu>
From: eyberg at umr.edu (Ian Eyberg)
Subject: PHC replies to criticism

greets-
  Is it just me or does anyone else think the list topic is 
full-disclosure?  I mean come on, who gives a shit about a silly little 
'hacker' group (cause I don't know any of you except of the guy that 
attends my school and he definitely isn't a hacker).  Get your own 
fucking list to bitch to people about.  There are a lot of professionals 
(not all security whitehats) who would like to utilize this list in the 
way it was meant to be and not to put up with bullshit from kids whose 
only positive sign, so far as shown forth on this list, that they can 
speak eloquently (oohh.. fancy word, maybe that'll show em that I can 0wn 
their box).  Everyone knows your point of view on things so shut up and 
hop back on irc and go root some boxen.  

Eat some captain crunch and drink a beer,

cyn0n

On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 03:16:13PM 
-0800, phc@...hmail.com wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> Hello,
> 
> In response to Len's administrivia...
> 
> We have decided to avoid self-defeating personal vendettas on this list and
> focus on those critics of PHC who possess the ability to think clearly and make
> cogent arguments. Such critics include Paul Schmehl and Steve Manzuik, perhaps
> the only critics on this list who have displayed clarity of thought and the
> ability to make logical and relevant arguments against what we have said.
> 
> No names will be mentioned here, but we will be ignoring the following classes
> of people:
> 
> 1. Those paranoid schizophrenics who make outlandish conspiracy theory claims
> suggesting that PHC is a government project or that PHC has been influenced by
> the government. We're not sure if these people are serious, but anyway. The
> meds aren't meant to taste good.
> 
> 2. Those weak-minded individuals who, as we have mentioned in a previous
> sermon, resort to nothing but ad hominem attacks such as "lamers,"
> "scriptkids," "newbies," and so on -- attacks they can't back up with evidence
> when challenged, i.e. they ignore the challenge totally and throw out further
> unsubstantiated, vaporous drivel. This makes them look like stubborn
> intellectual midgets who are capable of nothing except baseless monologues.
> 
> 3. Those people unable to focus on the points raised, but instead choose to go
> off on a tangent with their self-promotional rants about how they are reformed
> blackhats and such. The transparency of these people in their job hunting
> process is truly laughable. This is a really silly thing to note here, but one
> of these individuals who has been online since 1994 has called PHC "fresh
> bloods," when in actual fact the majority of PHC has been online since before
> then, as is clearly evident to anyone who researches old ezine releases and
> knows enough about PHC to make accurate connections. As if time online
> necessarily relates to "skillz" or other irrelevant crap, anyway.
> 
> 4. People sending in "narc" logs that have been floating around for a long
> time, not realizing that they are actually doing us a favour in vindicating us
> of terrorism motives.
> 
> Well, OK, we will mention one name: the fake 'nwonknu' who also appears to be
> the fake 'shiftee'. Do what you may, but you are welcome to email us and
> express your grievances against us. Don't read into this as a passive
> assimilation tactic, though.
> 
> As an exercise to the reader, see if you can classify the expected replies to
> this post based on the classes outlined above. The person who posts the most
> accurate classification attempt will be awarded op status in #phrack (yay).
> 
> 
> PHC
> 
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: Hush 2.2 (Java)
> Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
> 
> wlgEARECABgFAj3hX/QRHHBoY0BodXNobWFpbC5jb20ACgkQ0rw64nEc6GLidwCeIdQD
> vrHFRPAGR199hHQGOJ6c07cAoJjD4BnslhqHtTdj7GWDykpKI70X
> =ohf1
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get
> FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html