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: <46A96D3E.5090508@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:57:50 +0800
From: Deeþàn Chakravarthÿ <codeshepherd@...il.com>
To: nick@...us-l.demon.co.uk
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Hash

Nick FitzGerald wrote:
> shadown wrote:
>
>   
>> Just some hashed for the record.
>>
>> CA eTrust (vulnpack):
>> md5:919a7645a07aafb388af00e9b39d21bf
>> sha-1:b21f31892fff9de9bd6933850a66587786896fa1
>> SHA-256:66fd618e17bfe7db223f9547df15763d8246a49bbd6bbd7aee01964f2537bf86
>>     
>
> Cool -- thanks for that info...
>
>   
>> -- 
>> Sergio Alvarez
>> Security, Research & Development
>> IT Security Consultant
>> email: shadown@...il.com
>>
>> This message is confidential.  ...
>>     
>
> Yet you wilfully and knowingly posted it to a public-access mailing 
> list with tens of thousands of subscribers and that is well-known to be 
> archived in many places across the net?
>
> You must be a prize moron...
>
>   
>> ...  It may also contain information that is
>> privileged or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure.  ...
>>     
>
> ...who can't afford a lawyer with half a clue, and will now never be 
> able to meaningfully defend any kind of accidental Email-borne 
> "disclosure" of anything, as you've just admitted, on the public 
> record, that you are too stupid to tell if something is privileged or 
> legally exempt from disclosure, THUS your only legally defensible 
> position regarding such material in future is to ensure that you never 
> handle any of it, but as (by your own admission) you cannot tell what 
> that it is, you must cut yourself off from all information, a clearly 
> impossible task.  In short, you've put yourself in the paradoxical 
> position of being both knowingly and negligently responsible for any 
> and all "improper" disclosures of any and all "sensitive" material you 
> should ever happen across in future.
>
> Good luck ever getting hired again -- it would take a seriously stupid 
> employer to take on such a liability as you!
>
>   

Oh ya, you are the Mr.Perfect. 
>> ...  If you have
>> received it by mistake ...
>>     
>
> As you say it _is_ confidential and I have NO existing relevant 
> "relationship" with you, I MUST have received this by mistake....
>
>   
>> ... please let us know by e-mail ...
>>     
>
> ...and I have a good faith belief that the mailing list software will 
> deliver this is to you by Email, so I've fulfilled that part of the 
> "deal".  But what about the rest of the F-D subscribers?  You'll get a 
> _LOT_ of Email...
>
>   
>> ...immediately ...
>>     
>
> Although I wrote this as quickly as I could and sent it "immediately" 
> thereafter, I didn't read your message till several hours after 
> receiving it -- I hope that doesn't mean I didn't do it 
> "immediately"...
>
>   
>> ... and
>> delete it from your system; ...
>>     
>
> No.  Why should I?  Because _YOU_ are a moron and made a stupid 
> mistake?
>
> In case it's not already nice and clear, I'll try to make it even 
> clearer why this kind of "Email AUP" is _THOROUGHLY_ bogus.
>
> Imagine that I totally accidentally ran you over with my car BUT THEN 
> told you that the terms and conditions of my having run you over are 
> that you have to accept that I'm incompetent to judge whether I should 
> drive or not [that's the earlier stuff], that you are to forget it ever 
> happened [above]...
>
>   
>> ... should also not copy the message nor
>> disclose its contents to anyone. Many thanks.
>>     
>
> ...and that you are never to tell anyone anything about the accident.
>
> Do you think that would "protect" me in court if you actually had the 
> temerity to sue me for damages or some such?
>
> Would any lawyer with at least two good brain cells (yes -- a very rare 
> breed) sensibly take _my_ case?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Nick FitzGerald
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Secure Computing" group.
> To post to this group, send email to Secure-Computing@...glegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Secure-Computing-unsubscribe@...glegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Secure-Computing?hl=en
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>
>   

_______________________________________________
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ