full-disclosure - Re: improper scan abuse

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <000701c2fc2f$e9aa9bd0$6400a8c0@bytew2k>
From: smenard at nbnet.nb.ca (S Menard)
Subject: Re: improper scan abuse

Thanks to Benjamin for quickly reminding me of the open mail relays points
and adjusting my firewall rules to suit.  Any further suggestions on known
lists of

But, It sounds like I hit a nerve.   scanning for any  reason SUCKS  willie
wonka candies
    some like em,  some don't     AND it brings up the whole defensive
scanning / aggressive defense     debate. I thought up  a few scenarios
where a user/admin can abuse this type of service can easily be abused

So Shawn here's my  PUBLIC APOLOGY for being an idiot who speaks his mind.

Stephen Menard
smenard@...et.nb.ca
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shawn McMahon" <smcmahon@....com>
To: <full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: improper scan abuse

On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 07:06:29PM -0400, Stephen Menard said:
> I do not accept those terms
> Or maybe everyone should make such claims!

So, are you gonna post the apology publicly too, like you did the
accusation?