Message-ID: <b7bc1b1f040912221743d5bf0c@mail.gmail.com>
From: uberguidoz at gmail.com (GuidoZ)
Subject: win2kup2date.exe ?

Actually, tjhat makes a fair amount of sense. You're not alone. =)

This is kind of the tangent I was going on when I seemed to start this
whole thing. I figured by having a copy, I could help the person
requesting info, as well as being aware of it myself.

*shrugs*  To each their own I guess.

-- 
Peace. ~G


On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:31:13 -0700 (PDT), VX Dude <vxdude2003@...oo.com> wrote:
> Personally I think this thread is starting to get off
> topic.  But I'd like to address a topic that got
> brushed aside by this penis contest.
> 
> Viruses/Malware/Rogue Code on Full-Disclosure
> 
> I know this gets addressed every 2 months (you can
> calibrate your NTP server by it).  But it's an issue
> that should have some actual discussion on, and not
> just waved off with a few remarks.
> 
> Since most of the people reading this knows what
> Full-disclosure is, I wont pretend that you don't.
> 
> How  many times have we (the admins, the incident
> responce guys, and the help desk techs) had to respond
> to a virus outbreak without any help from antivirus
> companies?  Even when we pay them thousands of dollars
> in support contracts, the best information we get is
> "the diffinitions will be posted at so and so time".
> Wouldn't it be nice for once if one admin see's
> malware, and alerts everyone else?  So we know what
> subject line and attachments to block?  Isn't this the
> spirit of FD?
> 
> The "only trust the established antivirus
> corporations" line of thinking is (to me) just like
> saying "only vendors should release information about
> bugs".  Am I alone in this thinking?
> 
> Shouldn't it become a standard FD practice to send the
> list a copy of new malware that the "AV professionals"
> haven't told us about?  How much of your security
> budget could be saved if you weren't in the blind
> about the viruses already hitting your networks.
> Could FD style virus information be of help for those
> first critical hours?
> 
> I have a sad feeling that I am alone about this.  If I
> am, then I really pity you guys.
> 
> Stinny FranCisco, CISSP
> Internet Sniper
> eDefense Inc.
> 
> --- Nick FitzGerald <nick@...us-l.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Bugtraq Security Systems wrote:
> >
> > > Nick,
> > > You're a moron, and a fake moron at that.  ...
> >
> > Lessee -- "fake" means "not".
> >
> > So, in case it is not already obvious to you, your
> > statement thus
> > reduces to an outright contradiction.
> >
> > What a surprise.
> >
> > NOT!
> >
> > I wonder who is the real moron here then?
> >
> > > ...  If you had the clue god gave the
> > > average scriptkiddie, ...
> >
> > Fortunately, I have much more than that, as you have
> > already, so
> > adroitly, proved.
> >
> > Go crawl back under your rock...
> >
> > > ... you'd kill yourself in shame at your own
> > postings.
> >
> > Following your example, perhaps?
> >
> > > Cheers,
> > > BUGTRAQ Security Systems
> > > "If Nick FitzGerald had a brain cell for every bug
> > we tracked, ...
> >
> > Again, I am rather fortunate to weigh in
> > considerably on the upside of
> > that equation...
> >
> > > ... he'd be
> > > smart and not an arrogant no-nothing like he is
> > now."
> >
> > ...so I should be considerbaly "smart" and
> > considerably "not an
> > arrogant no-nothing" [sic], yet you then turn around
> > and contradict
> > yourself again.
> >
> > Fool -- if you're going to call folk names, at least
> > decide what those
> > names will be before hitting send on a screw-up of a
> > message such as
> > your last attempt...
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Nick FitzGerald

Powered by blists - more mailing lists