Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 22:25:49 -0400
From: Jason <security@...enik.com>
To: Matt Burnett <marukka@....com>
Cc: full-disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: LOL HY



Matt Burnett wrote:
> You really think this would be hard to design. Think about how most spam
> solutions work, if you get 25 posts in hour with 100k attachments from a
> new user, do you think they are talking about security or are they
> posting porn. Anything a spam filter would consider suspicous could be
> flaged for moderator approval. Its not 100% fool proof but do you really
> think some 16 year old kid whos posting porn here would take the time to
> try to defeat it, in order just to post crappy porn?

Wonderful. I suggest that you get or develop this technology for
yourself and offer it to others.

Have you done the analysis of the images yet? I quote the challenge
again for your and the lists benefit.

"Are you an expert? Have you done an analysis of the porn? What were
your findings? Are there any hidden messages? Disclosures? Patterns?
Trends?"

The next target of a terrorist plot could be embedded in there somewhere
just waiting for you to discover it.

> 
> If implemented properly it would not limit the free exchange of SECURITY
> RELATED information, but would limit the exchange of porn on FD. You
> dont think a couple thousand security people, most of whom are strong
> supporters of privacy rights/civil rights/etc couldnt devise a proper
> system that would not impead the exchange of security related information?
> Anyways what legal issues are you talking about, be specific. For one i
> know that it is against nearly all American corporate internet use
> policies to look at porn. So some 16 year old kid could potentialy get
> someone fired for sending porn on FD. Hows that for a legal issue.

If you are on a corporate network and subscribed to FD using corporate
resources without the authority and justification to do so then you
deserve to be terminated. It has nothing to do with porn and is just as
likely to have the same effect for downloading copyrighted content,
exploits, "dangerous material", viruses...

> 
> You never read what i said. You claimed that the link at the bottom
> would remove me, i said it went to the charter. Go re-read that email.

I said "If you are that inconvenienced by it I would suggest
that you and anyone else unhappy with an open forum use the link at the
bottom of the mail to gracefully remove yourself from the list population."

> 
> What are you talking about, the charter never says "along with an open
> forum for discussion comes some undesirable..." Would you mind not
> making up quotes of FD> If you dont belive me then here is the google
> link verifing my claim:
> http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22along+with+an+open+forum+for+discussion+comes+some+undesirable%22+site:lists.grok.org.uk&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

You are truly dense aren't you. _I_ (as in me) said "along with an open
forum for discussion comes some undesirable..." which was a truncated
quote from the previous mail where I said "Along with an open forum for
discussion comes some undesirable influences like yourself, the
mentioned porn, netdoodle, and the rest." I never implied this was in
the charter. Last guy calling for moderation didn't even get the
courtesy of a private reply like you did. /me thinks that approach is
superior. You == n3td3v == common twit - welcome to my filters. If you
actually do the analysis of the porn please use a different mail address
to post so I will see the results.

> 
> 
> Ive been around FD and BQ for several years, and no im not interested in
> a lite version of FD, just one that includes only security related
> information.

As stated and previously shown, several options are readily available to
you. If you don't want to use them then please let it be. It seems to me
that your choices are at odds with your desires. I usually find that
your pastor will happily help you with these internal conflicts.

Just in case you want to reconsider using the moderated version I'll
paste the link to the original post again -
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/fulldisclosure/2004-01/0590.html

> 
> Would you please stop fabricating quotes and actually answer a couple of
> the questions instead of changing the subject? Thanks!
> 

I've still got them in my sent where I wrote them and then copied them from.

It is quite interesting how you are brave and cocky until you get it
given back and then you cower and take the thread back to list where it
is still off topic. Where is that attitude you were throwing around just
a few minutes ago?


_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists