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  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]
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 17:43:21 -0500
From: Brandon Perry <>
To: Fyodor <>
Cc: Full Disclosure Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: [FD] Should it be better ...

Thank you for bringing this up.

When posting my information, I was actually assuming a brief description
with links was preferred if you were so inclined to read after a summary.
I, for one, didn't grow up on those types of lists and had never even
looked at bugtraq from that early on.

I also think it is easy for someone my age, whom may have been using some
of the same links for content for years, to make assumptions that a link
will be good for an indefinitely-extended period of time. I am really glad
you brought this point up.

I actually got lost for a couple hours reading old bugtraq after you posted
this and it is absolutely fascinating.

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Fyodor <> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Pablo <> wrote:
> > [Would] it be better to include the Advisory Details/exploit/code in the
> > body of the email to FD, and not in a link to a blog/site/company so the
> > list archive will be an archive and not a index to some, possible down,
> > link?
> >
> Yes, it is absolutely better to include full details in the body of the
> message rather than just a link.  I haven't been rejecting the link-only
> messages (as long as there is at least a brief summary), but they are
> annoying.  Not only are they a pain to read (need to open a browser and/or
> follow a link), but they screw up the archives.  Right now we're able to
> browse Bugtraq from more than 20 years ago, and it's fascinating:
> But if those messages were just links to other sites, how many would still
> work?  Hardly any.
> Now it's perfectly fine to ALSO include a link to the advisory on a web
> site.  Just include full details in the body of the post too.  The main
> exception is binary attachments.  If an attachment is more than 500K or a
> megabyte, just link it that attachment (in the descriptive text body of
> your post) to avoid clogging up people's mail spools.  Also, if you're
> posting someone else's work (like a news story or 3rd party blog or
> whatever), there may be copyright issues with just pasting the whole thing
> into your message.  Still, try to include at least the first few paragraphs
> or a summary so we know what it is.
> Thanks,
> Fyodor
> _______________________________________________
> Sent through the Full Disclosure mailing list
> Web Archives & RSS:

-- -- blog -- website

Sent through the Full Disclosure mailing list
Web Archives & RSS:

Powered by blists - more mailing lists