Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.protocols.tcp-ip > #1094

Re: Security comments, response to <43845@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>

Show all headers | View raw

On Monday, November 28, 1988 at 10:14:49 AM UTC-8, Dewey Henize wrote:
> I have tried several times to mail this to sswat, but it appears it isn't
> possible to get mail from here to there. My apologies in advance to those
> that are bored with the subject, please feel free to hit 'n' now. Following
> is the text of a letter I attempted several times to get to him.
> -------------------
> 
> Allow me to congratulate you, please, on an EXCELLENT article. You hit a 
> great many points, and I felt you handled them particularly well. Thank
> you.
> May I please note, as the one who first suggested that Morris (or whoever
> the clown releasing the worm was) have the [I believe my words were] shit
> beat out of him, that I DO NOT and never did advocate that as a simple and
> final solution. It has been portrayed that way, and a great deal of the
> other comments since have seemed to take the dichotomous stands you describe,
> yet I feel and believe most other serious people feel that a combination
> of solutions are necessary. I still feel that a message should be sent that
> its not ok to trash other peoples property to prove you can. I also feel
> that each site has responsibilities to do the best that they are capable of
> doing to limit unauthorized access; and I feel that in that regard the
> current world we live in is being let down by many, if not all of the
> vendors. And so on.
> I do like the idea of 'licensed' crackers. This would imply a bit of real
> expertise AND accountability. I've seen a lot posted of late that would
> imply all too many people are ready to set themselves up as the judge of
> my systems and rampage and destroy just to 'make me aware it can be done'.
> Well, I'm aware already, and I would welcome constructive criticisms from
> any reasonable sources, as I always have. Or, heck, I'd be more than 
> glad to have free labor do much of the grunt work I do already in my
> usual 70+ hour week. I don't have that luxury, though... Yet, if I knew
> that people who were responsible and mature (regardless of calendar age)
> were making a best effort to detect areas that I could be reasonably asked
> to handle and would let me know the results in ways that didn't trash
> everything, I'd be extremely supportive.
> Anyway, I've taken enough of your time. Thanks for reading this far. Again,
> let me thank you for a really good article with a lot of good information
> in it. I hope it's recieved as well and widespread as it should be.
> Dewey Henize
> Execucom Systems Corp
> 512-346-4980
> -- 
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> | There is nothing in the above message that can't be explained by sunspots. |
> | execu!dewey Dewey Henize |
> | Can you say standard disclaimer? I knew you could. Somehow... |
Thanks to you.

Back to comp.protocols.tcp-ip | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Security comments, response to <43845@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> KP KP <jungletrain@outlook.com> - 2022-08-14 12:44 -0700
  Re: Security comments, response to <43845@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> Thomas Bruce <brucethomas287@gmail.com> - 2022-11-01 03:34 -0700

csiph-web