Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email email@example.com
Date: Thu Jul 22 2010 - 16:56:57 CDT
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:24:07 PDT, "andrew.wallace" said:
> Are you trying to say no disclosure will ever come under the profile of cyber
No, I'm saying that claiming *every* disclosure *is* "cyber terrorism" is
lunacy. I've yet to see *anybody* other than yourself claim that Ormandy's
disclosure qualified as terrorism of any sort, cyber or otherwise. That leaves
one of two possibilities:
1) Ten years from now, we'll be wondering how all tens of thousands of people
in the computer security field totally got it wrong and you were the only one
who got it right.
2) The reverse of (1).
Hint: Unrecognized geniuses are so frikkin' rare they teach you about
them in school. Unrecognized idiots are much more common.
(Although I *would* enjoy seeing you come up with a *plausible* example where
the disclosure *itself* qualified as terrorism, separate from what uses are
made of it. For example - although terrorists have used C-4, the invention of
C-4 is not *itself* terrorism. Remember to keep that distinction straight in
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/