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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20040116163921.9004097B44@cpo.tn.tudelft.nl> From: emvs.fd.3FB4D11C at cpo.tn.tudelft.nl (Erik van Straten) Subject: Flawed arguments (Was all that other crap about PFW day) In [4], On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:33:29 -0600 Paul Schmehl wrote: > The previous poster complains that PFWs fool people into thinking > that they are more secure. Several other posters have cited the > fact that most *nixes now come with "the firewall enabled", which > obviously means they think that makes *nix more secure. So, they > believe, simply by having iptables (or whatever) enabled, they are > more secure. You started a new subject - clearly a rant *I* [1] complained that PFW's fool people into thinking that they are more secure - an idea you reject *AND* support in the same post [2] clearly shown in [3] You quoted only *MY* text - now you're talking "several other posters" who are you ranting anyway In your explanation [4] you're leaving out one of both relevant paragraphs from [3] and provide a stupid excuse I pity you - Get Some Sleep Erik [1] http://lists.netsys.com/pipermail/full-disclosure/2004-January/015674.html [2] http://lists.netsys.com/pipermail/full-disclosure/2004-January/015675.html [3] http://lists.netsys.com/pipermail/full-disclosure/2004-January/015678.html [4] http://lists.netsys.com/pipermail/full-disclosure/2004-January/015689.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists