full-disclosure - Re: Administrivia: Spring Cleaning

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: <20882.1233400524@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:15:24 -0500
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: don bailey <don.bailey@...il.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Administrivia: Spring Cleaning

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 03:38:06 MST, don bailey said:

> of noise. If this is allowed, it only proves that free venues for
> security discussion (rational or not) can be manipulated with something
> as simple as inane chatter.

It's *long* been understood within the security community that the best way
to deal with a DoS attack is to disable the source of the attack.

A case can be made that if the free venue is clogged with inane chatter to
the point of uselessness, that is *also* manipulation, and that *removing*
said source results in a *less* manipulated venue.

Which is more manipulated - one noise source that renders the venue unusable,
or one noise source that finds itself self-filtered?  In the first, everybody
feels the effects, in the second only the noise source itself feels the effect.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

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