Re: Mutually Assured DDoS

["Barry Raveendran Greene" <bgreene () senki org>]

My $.02. http://www.getit.org/?p=410. Knock off a home in Kansas because
some malware which no anti-virus tool detects as a military retaliation
right when a 911 call is needed is shallow military thinking. 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: funsec-bounces () linuxbox org 
> [mailto:funsec-bounces () linuxbox org] On Behalf Of Paul M. Moriarty
> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 2:43 PM
> To: Alex Lanstein
> Cc: funsec
> Subject: Re: [funsec] Mutually Assured DDoS
>
> The "botnet as a weapon" genie is already out of the bottle.  
> Why shouldn't the military have one too?
>
> - Paul -
>
> On May 1, 2009, at 2:22 PM, Alex Lanstein wrote:
>
> > > > > Idiocy.
> > > > > - - ferg
> >
> > Which part are you against?  The "botnet" angle or the NetA 
> initiative 
> > all together?  I don't see any reason our military 
> shouldn't research 
> > that angle of warfare... anything to keep our guys from 
> getting killed 
> > out there is good in my book.
> >
> > Alex
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
> https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
> Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.