full-disclosure - Full-Disclosure Posts

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]

Message-ID: <001001c4b3ea$ebb9fb90$7942100a@mother>
From: yossarian at planet.nl (yossarian)
Subject: Full-Disclosure Posts

Well, if it were a list for security professionals - with a consensus on
what security was and with a shared view how to look and act professional -
maybe. But then again, many people here would probably not qualify as
security pro in the economic sense - they are not employed in security per
s?, whilst many people so employed are ignorant of this list and the likes.
They sell firewalls in a box or ISO cretfication advice. Nanog on the other
hand is a list for people that might actually meet in jobrelated ways. FD
isn't, it is more for the vulnerability-inclined, while most security pro's
I meet are procedure minded. I have yet to meet a security officer that
could actually grasp a sniffer trace or an auditor that could read code....
And as far as security consultants go - well, ah, there are some good ones,
i guess. But maybe we could do a poll here: what job pays your bills. My
guess would be many sysadmins and proggers.

But not to worry, I can act professional myself, like wear a tie - if
someone could mail the link tothe manual on how to do the double windsor
....
----- Original Message -----
From: "yahoo@...alhost" <xploitable@...il.com>
To: <full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 12:15 AM
Subject: [Full-Disclosure] Full-Disclosure Posts

&gt; Should Full-Disclosure only allow so-called -real- names? I was on<BR>
&gt; Nanog (a network admin list) and they have a rule where you can
only<BR>
&gt; post with a first and second name, instead of an alias or nick, to<BR>
&gt; kind of give more credibility that you are a security professional
and<BR>
&gt; not a hax0r or script kiddie.<BR>
&gt; <BR>
&gt; Should the same rule be pro actively implemented to Full-Disclosure
or<BR>
&gt; is it a dead duck idea?<BR>
&gt; <BR>
&gt; I know hax0rs or script kiddies would probably use fake first and<BR>
&gt; second names if it was implemented, but at least the list would
look<BR>
&gt; neat and a tad more professional?<BR>
&gt; <BR>
&gt; Feedback welcomed....<BR>
&gt; <BR>
&gt; _______________________________________________<BR>
&gt; Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.<BR>
&gt; Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html