Home page logo
/

fulldisclosure logo Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: 0-day "vulnerability"
From: Tyler Borland <tborland1 () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:56:59 -0400

I think it's getting ridiculous.  Who cares about bureaucratical terms?  I
find more and more 'researchers' trying to just be auditors and categorize
exploits and try to follow some kind of universal naming convention for
exploits that doesn't exist and shouldn't exist.  I'd rather see information
on exploits and interesting ways to use them than saying it's one type or
the other.

This 'scene' is not about politics and terminology for me.

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:01 AM, <w0lfd33m () gmail com> wrote:

LMAO!!

Regards;
w0lf
www.maestro-sec.com
-- sent from BlackBerry --

-----Original Message-----
From: "Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd]"
       <cal.leeming () simplicitymedialtd co uk>
Sender: full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 03:23:57
To: Josey Yelsef<hg_exposed () yahoo com>
Cc: <full-disclosure () lists grok org uk>
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] 0-day "vulnerability"

_______________________________________________
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/

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

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]