Re: win2kup2date.exe ?

[Über GuidoZ <uberguidoz () gmail com>]

Agreed. I was the one who possibly started this with my innocent
comment of "send what you have to me and I'll see what I can figure
out". It was meant to be a helping hand and nothing more... sincerely.
I would expect anyone who understands the basics of the Internet to be
able to track down my true identity. I've given more then enough clues
for anyone knowing how to use WHOIS and Google. I'm not one of the bad
guys.

I was reading somewhere, yet again, that this list doesn't get the
respect it deserves since the discussions are usually brought down
this path of bickering and pissing contests. It's unfortunate since
this list servers a wonderful purpose that seems to be overlooked by
some. I apologize for any part I played in this most recent one - I
was only trying to do what I could to help out someone with a
question. I will continue to do so.

Barry has made some of the best points to far in this discussion.
There are two sides to this. Oh, and in Nick's defense, even though I
may not always agree with him, I can totally understand his angle and
POV. For what it's worth, I certainly don't think he is a moron.

-- 
Peace. ~G


On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 13:17:38 -0400, Barry Fitzgerald
<bkfsec () sdf lonestar org> wrote:
> Bugtraq Security Systems wrote:
>
> > Nick,
> > You're a moron, and a fake moron at that. If you had the clue god gave the
> > average scriptkiddie, you'd kill yourself in shame at your own postings.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > BUGTRAQ Security Systems
> > "If Nick FitzGerald had a brain cell for every bug we tracked, he'd be
> > smart and not an arrogant no-nothing like he is now."
> >
> > On Sat, 4 Sep 2004, Nick FitzGerald wrote:
> >
> >
> > > And you missed the point of what you perceived as my anger -- that's
> > > just one of my common posting styles.  You may see it as anger, but
> > > those that know better see it as the sharper side of my "here comes
> > > another one" attitude, honed over many, many years more experience of
> > > dealiing with fools than is healthy (at least for the new fools that
> > > come along every day).
> > >
> > > Quick -- around the corner to your left, there's another door...
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Nick FitzGerald
>
> Alright children...
>
> Can we stop with these useless ad hominem attacks?  All of us?  Thanks.
>
> Listen: some people have open access to exploits, some don't.  You're
> all right, and you're all wrong...
>
> And the final answer to all questions raised here is... it depends.
>
> How's that sound? :)  Thanks.
>
>                 -Barry
>
> p.s.  We don't want to give people who can't get access that access, and
> there are a lot of people who have a lot of access and there's nothing
> we can do to stop it.  Back, oh, 10 years ago when things like this
> happened on Bulletin Board Systems,  I remember that there were these
> blacklists that were distributed to keep people off of said boards.  If
> a person showed themselves to be untrustworthy, they got booted and
> added to the blacklist.  Not  to mention that getting access in the
> first place wasn't usually the easiest thing.  This is, obviously, much
> harder to control in this day and age, but even in those days the script
> kiddies got ahold of code and methods they weren't supposed to have.
> Like I said, the answer is "it depends...".  There's no unifying rule
> here.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html