Vulnerability Development mailing list archives
Re: Potential hole in Ettercap 0.6.2
From: Michal Zalewski <lcamtuf () coredump cx>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 14:56:44 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Blue Boar wrote:
Goobles sent another post to vuln-dev today, which was rejected due to personal attacks in their note.
GOBBLES is a good, one-time joke gone annoying... This guy is certainly a good english speaker - the nature of "mistakes" made by him are not ones newbies do; people with poor English skills tend to traslate idioms or grammar constructions literally, to use the incorrect meaning of a word, to use synonyms in their language that are not synonyms in English, to make _certain_ spelling mistakes and such. Actually, he either knows English very good (I guess better than me), or, more likely, is a native English speaker. He personally attacks AtStake, Alfred Huger and many other people, so apparently has a good knowledge of the community. This might be a way of someone to disclose some less revelant findings and have some fun. One way or another, I can hardly say any of GOBBLES advisories so far had a real value. I must say I do not find this offensive style entertaining, and I do not perceive it as something clever. Anyone familiar with the Usenet should have a good idea what a troll is, and how to deal with it... GOBBLES posts are written exclusively to cause endless discussions, flame wars, unnecessary noise - or, to be short, to get some attention. I hate to say so, but maybe it is time to ignore him? Instead of forwarding posts or excerpts or notification about yet another vulnerability in a discontinued line of scientific calculators, command-line buffer overflow / format string bug in a program that is not supposed to be setuid, claims that a failure to log authentication failure is a "remote root exploit", or an advisory on data leak as revelant to the security of your system as disclosing your system time or username by Sendmail in mail headers? I am not saying we should ignore valuable research if it does not conform to some "style guidelines", or that we should reject such very minor (and often unverified) bug reports if described in an acceptable manner, but if it does not have any value and lacks style, it is just sad. Just my $.02... or even less. -- _____________________________________________________ Michal Zalewski [lcamtuf () bos bindview com] [security] [http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx] <=-=> bash$ :(){ :|:&};: =-=> Did you know that clones never use mirrors? <=-= http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/photo/
Current thread:
- Potential hole in Ettercap 0.6.2 Blue Boar (Dec 04)
- Re: Potential hole in Ettercap 0.6.2 Michal Zalewski (Dec 04)
- Re: Potential hole in Ettercap 0.6.2 Blue Boar (Dec 04)
- Re: Potential hole in Ettercap 0.6.2 Jonathan Bloomquist (Dec 04)
- Proof of concept for the format bug in Ettercap 0.6.2 BAILLEUX Christophe (Dec 05)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re:Potential hole in Ettercap 0.6.2 w1re p4ir (Dec 04)
- Re:Potential hole in Ettercap 0.6.2 ALoR (Dec 04)
- Re:Potential hole in Ettercap 0.6.2 Jose Nazario (Dec 04)
- Message not available
- Re:Potential hole in Ettercap 0.6.2 ALoR (Dec 04)
- Re:Potential hole in Ettercap 0.6.2 ALoR (Dec 04)
- Re: Potential hole in Ettercap 0.6.2 Michal Zalewski (Dec 04)
- Re: Potential hole in Ettercap 0.6.2 Melsa (Dec 04)