Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: [Professional IT Security Reviewers - Exposed] SecReview ( A + )
From: "Kurt Dillard" <kurtdillard () msn com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:36:25 -0300
I agree with Nate. It's odd how you dismiss any critics as 'trolls,' and only believe that people who compliment your efforts are 'legitimate readers.' As an author and public speaker I know that I get the most value from people who critique my work because they help me to improve. Sure, being slapped on the back feels good, but having someone point out my mistakes helps me to fix them. From: full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk [mailto:full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk] On Behalf Of Nate McFeters Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 2:08 PM To: SecReview Cc: full-disclosure () lists grok org uk Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] [Professional IT Security Reviewers - Exposed] SecReview ( A + ) Unless I missed something, these seemed like legitimate responses. They may not have all been delivered with tact, but I mean, you are on FD, what did you expect? I think some valid points are brought up about your credentials and your process. Nate On 12/21/07, SecReview <secreview () hushmail com> wrote: PaulM: You'd be right only if you weren't wrong. That being said, we're not going to talk to the trolls any more. While it might be amusing it's a waste of our time, and our readers time. We will continue to write reviews and will continue to be as honest and truthful as possible during our reviews. Likewise, if any of our legitimate readers have any questions or comments about our blog, we'd very much appreciate them. We especially want people to comment if they have worked with a vendor that we have assessed, we want to know your experience. Other than that, thanks for your time and thanks for reading! On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:00:40 -0500 Paul Melson <pmelson () gmail com> wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 7:19 PM, SecReview < secreview () hushmail com
<mailto:secreview () hushmail com> > wrote:
1.) What are your qualifications for reviewing thesecompanies?We are a team of security professionals that have beenperforming awide array of penetration tests, vulnerability assessments, web application security services etc. One of our team members has founded two different security companies both of which have been very successful and have offered high quality services. Yes wehaveall sorts of pretty little certifications, but those don'treallymatter.So this is basically a tacit admission that every one of your "team" has something to gain by smearing the competition. At this point, I'm inclined to believe that the firms you've scored favorably are your employers. You're not only incompetent, it seems that you're unethical as well. Not that I'm surprised. PaulM
Regards, The Secreview Team http://secreview.blogspot.com -- Click for free information on accounting careers, $150 hour potential. http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/Ioyw6h4dCaRmEr952Q9rDz2W8lHgc6veIDv3aadT6aNuL UwzQUCOfu/ Professional IT Security Service Providers - Exposed _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Current thread:
- Re: [Professional IT Security Reviewers - Exposed] SecReview ( A + ) SecReview (Dec 21)
- Re: [Professional IT Security Reviewers - Exposed] SecReview ( A + ) Nate McFeters (Dec 21)
- Re: [Professional IT Security Reviewers - Exposed] SecReview ( A + ) Kurt Dillard (Dec 21)
- trolls and procmail Re: [Professional IT Security Reviewers - Exposed] SecReview ( A + ) gwen hastings (Dec 22)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- [Professional IT Security Reviewers - Exposed] SecReview ( A + ) damncon (Dec 21)
- Re: [Professional IT Security Reviewers - Exposed] SecReview ( A + ) Nate McFeters (Dec 21)