Re: Should it be better ...

[Fyodor <fyodor () nmap org>]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Pablo <paa.listas () gmail com> 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:

http://seclists.org/bugtraq/1993/Nov/index.html

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
http://nmap.org/mailman/listinfo/fulldisclosure
Web Archives & RSS: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/