full-disclosure - <Cisco Message> Mike Lynn's controversial Cisco Security Presentation

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: <20050729210122.Y75285@ubzr.zsa.bet>
Date: Sat Jul 30 03:03:40 2005
From: measl at mfn.org (J.A. Terranson)
Subject: <Cisco Message> Mike Lynn's controversial
	Cisco Security Presentation

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Jason Coombs wrote:

> J.A. Terranson wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Jason Coombs wrote:
> >
> > *millions* of copies of these "secrets" in general circulation.  Nobody
> > can assert with a straight face that anything about Lynn's presentation is
> > not completely and totally within the public view - and irretrievably so.
>
> Just because you have a copy doesn't mean the document is in public
> view. The infowarrior.org URL no longer provides a copy of the trade
> secrets to those who seek them, so the effort to control distribution is
> working. Anyone who complies with the court order will delete their copy
> of the document and forget what they have read.

I'm not talking about Infowarrior, nor am I discussing one copy.  Hint: I
didn't get my copy from Infowarrior.  Nor have I seen any "order".

> You are making an argument that the legal system doesn't work just
> because you can disregard it at your own peril. That's nonsensical.

Not at all, I'm stating the obvious: this is plain public view because
it's "controlled distribution" failed on a massive scale which is
irretrieveable on it's face.  There are too many copies for even an
attempt to fake it.

-- 
Yours,

J.A. Terranson
sysadmin@....org
0xBD4A95BF

I like the idea of belief in drug-prohibition as a religion in that it is
a strongly held belief based on grossly insufficient evidence and
bolstered by faith born of intuitions flowing from the very beliefs they
are intended to support.

don zweig, M.D.