full-disclosure - Third issue of the Zone-H Comics

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: <43399222.1010006@sdf.lonestar.org>
Date: Tue Sep 27 19:41:33 2005
From: bkfsec at sdf.lonestar.org (bkfsec)
Subject: Third issue of the Zone-H Comics

J. Oquendo wrote:

>To offer single sided right winged Hitlerish views of his personal Nirvana
>of what security should be knowing little about it.
>  
>
Hahahaha... too true.

>I recall when Attrition was in their "Heyday" and some issues they ran
>into archiving defaced sites. I also take note of the dual edged sword
>regarding displaying defacements. Take into account the actions (or
>alleged actions) of John Vranesevich former kiddiot at AntiOnline now on
>the UnEmploymentLine or wherever he is. It was alleged he ended up paying
>his kiddiotic friends to deface sites so he could whore a story. This can
>be corroborated by others who've been around for some time.
>
>  
>
Yep... and there have been scandals, as I recall, in the past where the 
news either angled for a position in a major disaster or actually 
orchestrated an attack in process... (anyone remember the issue with the 
L.A. riots and that person in the truck who got attacked?)

But, should we then throw the baby out with the bathwater and ban the 
news?  Of course not...

>Agencies in the US only take note when its to their benefit. I could track
>down some of these idiots within minutes. Agencies only do so when it
>suits their agendas. "Gee we need more money in our budget. I know, let's
>go arrest little hax0r_X_f00_f00_f00 and implement a cybersecurity
>department in our town!"
>  
>
Yep... well, virtually everything is a cost-benefit ratio in this 
world.   Aside from that, though, people would still deface sites 
regardless of whether there was an archive site up.  The primary motive 
for the defacement is often the initially hit of defacement itself.

Frankly, what's a bigger issue than general defacement is when the 
kiddies put spyware or trojans on the defaced site....

>
>Likely because his profile indicates he is trying to speak outside of his
>experience range. He seems to be trying to fish for an angle... "If I say
>this people with think I'm jolly krad!". 
>
Hahaha... I haven't seen the word "krad" used in a long time... it's 
funny, these kiddies try to act all |<-rad |<001 31334 but they lose the 
lingo in their focus on the idiotic lettering... it's like wannabes 
failing at being wannabes.

>Of all the posts I've read concerning this matter he seems to be stuck on clueless trying to get a
>shoe on which won't fit. Instead of waisting his time rambling on about
>the political aspects of "security" he should be perhaps getting a clue on
>it before sticking his foot down his throat.
>  
>
Agreed.

             -bkfsec