[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3a166c090603311247y4cc4eeceu21ce3066ac42d9f3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri Mar 31 21:47:34 2006
From: n3td3v at gmail.com (n3td3v)
Subject: Re: RSA HAVE CRACKED PHISHING, NO SERIOUSLY
Why don't you just "filter" me like "the experts" have told you to do? Or
haven't you worked out the technical background architecture of Outlook and
Thunderbird yet? Figures.
On 3/31/06, php0t <very@...rivate.com> wrote:
>
> For real, please keep your word.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk [mailto:
> full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk] *On Behalf Of *n3td3v
> *Sent:* Friday, March 31, 2006 9:55 PM
> *To:* full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
> *Subject:* [Full-disclosure] Re: RSA HAVE CRACKED PHISHING, NO SERIOUSLY
>
> This is funny as well, http://news.com.com/5208-1029-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=15591&messageID=131539&start=-1&reply=true
> I almost choked on my big mac after reading this one, the guy thinks if
> you take down a site, the phisher's script doesn't deploy another premade
> site straight away on another host. lol, maybe the RSA have miscalculated
> the pre plainning and programming of a phishing attack backend before its
> carried out. I guess they just thought phishing was down to "dumb
> criminals".
>
> On 3/31/06, n3td3v <n3td3v@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Check out this article, and I really did spill my hard earned Starbucks
> > right down my front when I looked at this article:
> > http://news.com.com/5208-1029-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=15591&messageID=131433&start=-1
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20060331/6c444cc5/attachment.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists