full-disclosure - Windoze almost managed to 200x repeat 9/11

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]

From: we_hate_vince at hotmail.com (Vince Able)
Subject: Windoze almost managed to 200x repeat 9/11

Well what a nice first post to read entering Full-Disclosure. LoL
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Barry Fitzgerald" <bkfsec@....lonestar.org>
To: "ASB" <abaker@...il.com>
Cc: <full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Windoze almost managed to 200x repeat 9/11


> ASB wrote:
>
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >Next time, please read the thread in context.
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >The context of the thread is that an application issue is being
> >incorrectly interpreted as an OS issue.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Oversimplification is for the foolish.  Like I said, you're not too
bright.
>
> You're showing very little understanding of system architecture here.
> My point regarding where the code was located had to do with a
> generalized statement regarding applications being at fault for issues
> and for them not being OS issues.  My point was that it's not always
> clear cut.
>
> I was not trying to say that this case was an OS issue.  I was trying to
> say that the line is not always black and white.  I was also pointing
> out that none of us know because the only information we have to go on
> is third-hand and imprecise.  If you can predict conditions based on
> imprecise third-hand information, then what are you doing here?!?  Go
> solve the world's problems or something.  of course, you can't so you've
> decided to just flame people.
>
> Please re-read my posts and think before you respond.
>
> If, besides misreading my posts, you can find no argument with what I've
> said (which, you won't, because I'm right) then I'm willing to hear
> them.  Other than that, you're just wasting everyone's time by trying to
> railroad points that you don't understand.
>
>        -Barry
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
>