full-disclosure - Re: LOL HY

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: <3da3d8310608180809led94a42xd0054390787cbdb@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:09:15 -0500
From: "Eliah Kagan" <degeneracypressure@...il.com>
To: full-disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: LOL HY

On 8/15/06, Edward Pearson <Ed@...tyitservices.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm glad somebody said it. I'm fed up of the whole "if you don't like
> them, don't read them" crap.
>
> Fuck you all. I'm going to Bugtraq.

Right--you don't like the list, so you don't read it. You are acting
in accordance with the mantra with which you express disagreement.

Saying that it is possible to set up a system to automatically censor
a significant portion of messages not related to security while
allowing all messages that pertain to security doesn't make it so. Can
anyone give a technical description of how this is supposed to work?
Can anyone give a mathematical definition of what it means for a
message to be security-related that almost everyone will agree on, or
at least a mathematical definition of what it means for a message to
be part of a superset of all security-related messages that
nonetheless excludes a significant portion of messages that are not
security related? If the answer to either of these questions is no,
then people who call for a system of moderation of FD are engaging in
wishful thinking, and, for those who propose details (rather than just
spamming the list with regurgitated moderation requests), farfetched
science fiction.

If the answer to both those questions is yes, then a new security list
should be established that conducts that kind of moderation, and that
list should itself--at least initially--be subscribed to FD.

On 8/15/06, Jason wrote (addressing Matt Burnett):
> If you
> actually do the analysis of the porn please use a different mail address
> to post so I will see the results.

So Jason is saying:

(1) The content you post on FD is wortheless to me, so rather than
calling for moderation or telling you to change your behavior, I'm
filtering it on my end because I don't wish to see it (perfectly
reasonable).

(2) If you decide to post content that you judge to be worthy of my
attention, please go out of the way to circumvent my filters so that I
receive it in spite of my decision not to receive your content.

Jason appears to be calling for a dual-tracking system, whereby people
who post lots of content that others don't like (or that just Jason
doesn't like) use two email addresses--one for the content that people
will wait to block, and one for the content that people will want to
see.

I fail to see how this differs appreciably from simply telling people
to shut up, though I appreciate that it may have been a joke (and I
hope it was).

-Eliah

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