full-disclosure - a PGP signed mail? Has to be spam!

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: <20031111223639.E27896-100000@aegir.asgardnet.org>
From: domino at asgardnet.org (Ciro)
Subject: a PGP signed mail? Has to be spam!

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Peter Moody wrote:

> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:41:00 -0800
> From: Peter Moody <peter@...c.edu>
> To: onedo@....net
> Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] a PGP signed mail? Has to be spam!
>
> > Guys(and girls), the situation sucks. What do you think? And, most important
> > of all, do you see any way to fight this behaviour? Because honestly, I
> > don't.
>
> I frequently get messages from virus filters telling me that my
> attachment (signature.asc) has been removed as it's thought to contain a
> virus.  For the virus end, it'll take time for people to start coding
> proper virus scanners that don't recognize .asc as a virus.
>

I don't expect that to come about until we can get virus scanners that
aren't set by default to spam the receiver (or the forged From:
address) with notices that some worm spam(SWEN, Sobig, etc...)  was blocked.

--
"Why would burgulars need to look for a backdoor when they can climb in
through Windows?" --Norman L DeForest, in NANAE
"You know how dumb the average luser is? Well, half of 'em are dumber
than that" -- The Roadie, in NANAE