Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Why is IRC still around?
From: vord <vordhosbn () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:06:46 -0600
vord <vordhosbn () gmail com> wrote:
if shooting people is evil, OBVIOUSLY guns are flawed, but only insofar as people are capable of abusing them, willing to abuse them, and effective in their attempts at doing so. so to burn the candle at both ends you have to fight the spread of trojans and virii by fixing the holes they exploit and providing detection services, while also continually analyzing and evolving the structure on which it all rests. ie, the internet at its core... protocols, etc.
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 18:59:54 -0700, james edwards <hackerwacker () cybermesa com> wrote:
But, just like IRC, a gun has legit uses. I am alive today because I was in a situation where it was kill or be killed (I surprized so folks robbing my house). So, OBVIOUSLY, guns are not flawed. Your argument, on the other had, is. james
what? ... from the perspective of someone with initiative to solve security problems it should not matter whether or not a legitimate use for something exists, or whether or not the number of legitimate uses for something out number the illegitimate. all that matters is whether or not abuse can occur. the possibility for abuse and certainly the actuality of abuse are what constitute flaws in a something. both guns and IRC, by all reasonable measures, are abused and therefore flawed as well. further, whether these things have any more or any fewer flaws than anything else is also irrelevant. IRC is abused, it is flawed, it should be fixed or trashed, and only continually used while a better alternative is in development. the irony here is that IRC contributes a great deal to the malware/virii/trojan/scriptkid problem, which seems to be a rather large concern on this list and elsewhere, yet very little to nothing is being done about these problems in relation to IRC specifically -- not by server admins, not by developers, and not by security professionals -- to my knowledge. and as stated previously, "they would move to another medium" is an incoherent defense for inaction. please accept and understand precisely why IRC is the medium of choice for this kind of activity: because it is easiest to abuse; and if you don't accept this ... how else do you account for the disproportionate amount of it taking place on IRC versus all other mediums mentioned in this thread? anyone? [flame] and btw james, everyone knows that people have flaws -- there probably isn't anything more obvious than this fact; but considering your argument above, i suggest you leave those problems to the psychologists and start doing your job. [/flame] --vord #hackphreak/undernet invulnerable to the accidents of people and books. http://www.eleat.org [NSFW] http://vord.rsc.cx [NSFW] _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Re: Why is IRC still around?, (continued)
- Re: Why is IRC still around? stephane nasdrovisky (Nov 20)
- Re: Why is IRC still around? Michael Rutledge (Nov 19)
- Re: Why is IRC still around? n3td3v (Nov 19)
- Re: Why is IRC still around? (n3td3v is a troll) Steve R (Nov 20)
- Re: Re: Why is IRC still around? (n3td3v is a troll) n3td3v (Nov 21)
- Re: Re: Why is IRC still around? ntx0f (Nov 21)
- Re: Why is IRC still around? n3td3v (Nov 19)
- Re: Why is IRC still around? vord (Nov 20)
- Re: Why is IRC still around? james edwards (Nov 21)
- Re: Why is IRC still around? vord (Nov 21)
- Re: Why is IRC still around? Bart . Lansing (Nov 22)
- Re: Why is IRC still around? vord (Nov 22)
- Re: Why is IRC still around? n3td3v (Nov 22)
- Re: Why is IRC still around? vord (Nov 22)
- Re: Why is IRC still around? n3td3v (Nov 23)
- Re: Why is IRC still around? Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 23)
- Re: Why is IRC still around? vord (Nov 23)
- Re: Why is IRC still around? n3td3v (Nov 24)
- Re: Why is IRC still around? vord (Nov 24)
- Re: Why is IRC still around? n3td3v (Nov 25)