Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: [Full-Disclosure] Full-disclosure Posts
From: yossarian <yossarian () planet nl>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 03:44:25 +0200
Well, if it were a list for security professionals - with a consensus on what security was and with a shared view how to look and act professional - maybe. But then again, many people here would probably not qualify as security pro in the economic sense - they are not employed in security per sé, whilst many people so employed are ignorant of this list and the likes. They sell firewalls in a box or ISO cretfication advice. Nanog on the other hand is a list for people that might actually meet in jobrelated ways. FD isn't, it is more for the vulnerability-inclined, while most security pro's I meet are procedure minded. I have yet to meet a security officer that could actually grasp a sniffer trace or an auditor that could read code.... And as far as security consultants go - well, ah, there are some good ones, i guess. But maybe we could do a poll here: what job pays your bills. My guess would be many sysadmins and proggers. But not to worry, I can act professional myself, like wear a tie - if someone could mail the link tothe manual on how to do the double windsor .... ----- Original Message ----- From: "yahoo@localhost" <xploitable () gmail com> To: <full-disclosure () lists netsys com> Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 12:15 AM Subject: [Full-Disclosure] Full-disclosure Posts > Should Full-Disclosure only allow so-called -real- names? I was on<BR> > Nanog (a network admin list) and they have a rule where you can only<BR> > post with a first and second name, instead of an alias or nick, to<BR> > kind of give more credibility that you are a security professional and<BR> > not a hax0r or script kiddie.<BR> > <BR> > Should the same rule be pro actively implemented to Full-Disclosure or<BR> > is it a dead duck idea?<BR> > <BR> > I know hax0rs or script kiddies would probably use fake first and<BR> > second names if it was implemented, but at least the list would look<BR> > neat and a tad more professional?<BR> > <BR> > Feedback welcomed....<BR> > <BR> > _______________________________________________<BR> > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.<BR> > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] Full-disclosure Posts Sir Robert Mortimer Thrip (Oct 16)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- [Full-Disclosure] Full-disclosure Posts yahoo@localhost (Oct 16)
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] Full-disclosure Posts Mike Barushok (Oct 16)
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] Full-disclosure Posts yossarian (Oct 16)
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] Full-disclosure Posts Etaoin Shrdlu (Oct 16)
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] Full-disclosure Posts 404 (Oct 17)
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] Full-disclosure Posts yahoo@localhost (Oct 17)
- Re: [SPAM] Re: [Full-Disclosure] Full-disclosure Posts Hugo van der Kooij (Oct 17)
- Re: [SPAM] Re: [Full-Disclosure] Full-disclosure Posts xploitable (Oct 18)
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] Full-disclosure Posts backyard@yahoo-inc (Oct 17)
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] Full-disclosure Posts yossarian (Oct 17)
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] Full-disclosure Posts xploitable (Oct 18)