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: Azerail at (Azerail)
Subject: Is the FBI using email Web bugs?

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004, bryce wrote:

> Azerail wrote:
> >On Thu, 08 Jan 2004, Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Actually, my email client "mutt" makes me feel quite safe.  Is there
> >>>something I am overlooking?
> >>
> >>Lack of features != security
> >>
> >
> >
> >I'm sorry, you've just proved beyond a doubt that you don't know what
> >you are talking about.  Sorry to have to put it like that, but there
> >it is.
> >
> >Azerail
> >
> Ok Azerail, if you feel that Johnathan's statement is so incorrect as to 
> be insulting, then prove him wrong. 

Challenge accepted.

> Share with us why you feel that LoF != security. 

That's not what I was making my statement about, I was talking about
mutt having lack of features.  If one is inclined to respond to a
statement with another statement that not only is wrong, but grossly
inaccurate, I don't feel it's inappropiate to call them on such.  In
addition, I never said that LoF != security, he did.   Stop trying to
be so quick to write a post that you think is going to put me on the
spot and practice some reading comprehension.

Maybe you should use a MUA that uses threads, like mutt.  It'll help
you keep track of these things.

> Logically and statistically(sp)the more lines of code in a 
> program, the greater the chance of a bug. And you can't add features to 
> a program without adding code( if anyone has proven me wrong on this i 
> would love to talk to you about it ;) ). Thus by adding features to a 
> program you are adding in bugs(although we try otherwise).
> What is wrong with this logic???

Nothing expect that that is not what he said.  He said that a "lack of
features != security.  Your statement, which is indeed quite logical,
only argues the point opposite Johnathan's.  What you are arguing is that a
lack of features enchances security.  lack of features = security, not
lack of features != security.  Again, practice some reading
comprehension.  I apologize to Johnathan for the curtness of my post,
I had a long day and that was the first email I saw when I got home.

Next time, if you want to defend someone else's arguments by daring
someone to prove otherwise, don't let the inital argument that you
launch be the direct opposite of the argument that you are defending.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists