full-disclosure - Re: [FD] FD should block attachments

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <15533237421C6E4296CC33A2090B224A01411C5F@UTDEVS02.campus.ad.utdallas.edu>
From: pauls at utdallas.edu (Schmehl, Paul L)
Subject: Re: [FD] FD should block attachments

> -----Original Message-----
> From: full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com 
> [mailto:full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com] On Behalf Of 
> morning_wood
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 4:33 PM
> To: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: [FD] FD should block attachments
> 
> am i missing something here?
>  because i realy do not see the issue.
>
Yes, you are.  As I pointed out earlier, for some people who subscribe
to FD, it's a cost issue.  They pay by the byte or by the amount of time
they're online, and attachments *cost* them money.  If people provided
URLS and an explanation of the file, then those folks for whom this is a
cost issue could decide *before* they are forced to download the file
(by simply checking their mail), whether or not they actually wanted a
copy.  The suggestion to not subscribe to the list if you're in that
position was a rather ill-considered one, if you ask me.  This shouldn't
be an either or choice for them.

Now *that* doesn't seem too hard to understand, to me, but unfortunately
far too many of US are spoiled, with high bandwidth connections that
don't add any additional cost for downloading large files so we're
blinded to other people's dilemmas.

I personally could care less if the attachments or sent to the list or
not, but I *do* think one ought to at least *consider* the fact that
it's a cost issue for some folks.  And I'm willing to bet that most of
those folks are smart enough that they don't really need our help
figuring out whether a file is safe to download or not (or how to
download it safely if you want to put it that way.)

It would certainly rid the list of the irritation factor for those
people who get "surprised" by the attachments and then flood the list
with complaints.  (Yes, I know all about filtering, yada, yada, yada.
This isn't about *me*.)

Paul Schmehl (pauls@...allas.edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/