full-disclosure - trolls and procmail Re: [Professional IT Security Reviewers

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:21:57 -0800
From: gwen hastings <gwenhastings@...glemail.com>
To: SecReview <secreview@...hmail.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: trolls and procmail Re: [Professional IT Security
 Reviewers -	Exposed] SecReview ( A + )

To SecReview,
     And as MOST of the denizens of this list think you are spamming us
with useless no content sec reviews, we
could post a procmail script to post an FAQ right next to every posting
you make on Bugtraq so the uninitiated reader is
NOT fooled by your "reviews".

And if the list feels pushed enough by your behaviour(s) the script and
the FAQ will appear and keep reappearing and all the while forwarded by
remailers.




    trolls? yes you should really think about that word, your reputation
capital on this list is somewhat less than zero.



            just another tentacle of medusa(a troll indeed)



Trolls?











SecReview wrote:
> PaulM:
>
> You'd be right only if you weren't wrong. That being said, we're 
> not going to talk to the trolls any more. While it might be amusing 
> it's a waste of our time, and our readers time.
>
> We will continue to write reviews and will continue to be as honest 
> and truthful as possible during our reviews. Likewise, if any of 
> our legitimate readers have any questions or comments about our 
> blog, we'd very much appreciate them. We especially want people to 
> comment if they have worked with a vendor that we have assessed, we 
> want to know your experience. Other than that, thanks for your time 
> and thanks for reading!
>
>
>
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:00:40 -0500 Paul Melson <pmelson@...il.com> 
> wrote:
>   
>> On Dec 20, 2007 7:19 PM, SecReview <secreview@...hmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>>> 1.) What are your qualifications for reviewing these 
>>>>         
>> companies?
>>     
>>> We are a team of security professionals that have been 
>>>       
>> performing a
>>     
>>> wide array of penetration tests, vulnerability assessments, web
>>> application security services etc. One of our team members has
>>> founded two different security companies both of which have been
>>> very successful and have offered high quality services. Yes we 
>>>       
>> have
>>     
>>> all sorts of pretty little certifications, but those don't 
>>>       
>> really
>>     
>>> matter.
>>>       
>> So this is basically a tacit admission that every one of your 
>> "team"
>> has something to gain by smearing the competition.  At this point, 
>> I'm
>> inclined to believe that the firms you've scored favorably are 
>> your
>> employers.  You're not only incompetent, it seems that you're
>> unethical as well.  Not that I'm surprised.
>>
>> PaulM
>>     
> Regards, 
>       The Secreview Team
>       http://secreview.blogspot.com
>
> --
> Click for free information on accounting careers, $150 hour potential.
> http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/Ioyw6h4dCaRmEr952Q9rDz2W8lHgc6veIDv3aadT6aNuLUwzQUCOfu/
>       Professional IT Security Service Providers - Exposed
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>   

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