Full Disclosure: Re: Media backlash begins against HD Moore and I)ruid

[scott <redhowlingwolves () nc rr com>]

Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
>  On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:40:32 BST, n3td3v said:
>
> > Are you suggesting HD Moore had prior knowledge that the Austin Texas
> > AT&T servers were vulnerable?
>  No - simply saying that either they were vulnerable, or they weren't.  If
>  they weren't vulnerable, HD didn't have to do anything.  And even if they
>  *were*, somebody would still have to actually *attack* them.
>
>  And even if they *got* attacked, it's quite possible that the upsides 
of not
>  bothering to do something outweighed the risks.  If you estimate that the
>  cost (including "things you could have spent your time doing") is more 
than
>  the losses, why bother?  "Even if we *got* whacked, we'd lose maybe 
$500. But
>  in the time I'd waste dealing with the issue, I could generate 
something that
>  will get us $2,000 in revenue.  So if I fix it, I lose $1500, and if I 
ignore
>  it, I come out $1,500 ahead if we get hit, and $2,000 if we don't".
>
>
>
>  -------------------------
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>  Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>  Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
You can't expect n3td3v to understand things like that. He's a hero to 
all who read his cut-n-paste blog, not a true InfoSec worker.



_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/