full-disclosure - Re: Brilliant attack "bypasses" bitlocker

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

Message-ID: <09130A33C60C9C4982D35105CBABB278279EF8001A@Exchange.hammerofgod.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:26:09 -0800
From: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <thor@...merofgod.com>
To: "dgoodin@...register.com" <dgoodin@...register.com>,
	"full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Brilliant attack "bypasses" bitlocker

/me sheepishly acquiesces to Dan publically.

Dan is right, I am wrong.  After consulting our resident grammar expert, I have been corrected.  My apologies to Dan for incorrectly attributing a grammatical error to his piece.  I was going to bet on it too ;)

t

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Goodin [mailto:dgoodin@...pub.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 2:21 PM
To: Thor (Hammer of God)
Subject: Re: Brilliant attack "bypasses" bitlocker

"Methods" is an object in the sentence. I think what's confusing you is
that it comes ahead of the subject, which is "attack."

Thor (Hammer of God) wrote:
> Sorry, you're wrong on this one.  Only if your structure was "The hardware-level phishing attack" as the object and not "methods" would you be correct.  But it's not....  The methods "are," not the methods "is."  You might have intended that to be the case, but you didn't write it like that.
> 
> t

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