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  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]
From: ggilliss at (Gregory A. Gilliss)
Subject: Feeding Stray Cats

I get such a kick out of these threads, which invariably generate
*gobs* of discussion that has *nothing* to do with security...maybe
we need the "FD subscribers opinions on FD" list.

Let's face it...this list is a mixed bag - some with clue, some without.
My personal suggestion (flames off list pls) is that those with clue (you
know who you are) do a google on "gracious" because clue comes with
responsibility. Where would the clued be without those who went before
to help smooth the path to clueness?

Speaking of responsibility, in a security related vein, those caring about
the signal to noise ratio of the list who would like to flame me anyway
may flame me live and in person.  I am giving a security talk (an 
ill-prepared one, likely) in the SF Bay Area at BAFUG: 

The talk is on CBOSS and TrustedBSD and security in general. So come eat
this Thursday in Millbrae. So come on down and have at it (tip nicely pls).

And to those who filtered this post, too bad :-p


On or about 2003.11.10 11:38:17 +0000, Kenneth Ekdahl ( said:

> One way to solve this could be to split this list into two; one
> moderated and one un-moderated. All mail gets sent to the un-moderated
> list, to avoid the suspicions of censorship that makes this list
> different from bugtraq, and those mail that pass moderation, or is sent
> from someone who is known from previous posts to be serious, will also
> be sent to the moderated list.
> That way anybody i able to choose between two levels of noise.
> Just like open source software is often more secure, not because
> everybody reads all the source code, but everybody knows that many who
> really are interested in security issues reads the source, and will
> report any problems.
> The same goes for my idea above, no-one has to read the un-moderated
> list, but everybody has the chance to do it.

Gregory A. Gilliss, CISSP                              E-mail:
Computer Security                             WWW:
PGP Key fingerprint 2F 0B 70 AE 5F 8E 71 7A 2D 86 52 BA B7 83 D9 B4 14 0E 8C A3

Powered by blists - more mailing lists