Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.protocols.tcp-ip > #1111

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

Show all headers | View raw

On Sunday, 14 August 2022 at 12:44:21 UTC-7, KP KP wrote:
> 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.



We connect Buyers and Sellers in bitcoin transactions, making the deal absolutely safe and transparent.

Regards
pmfrnow@email.com

Back to comp.protocols.tcp-ip | Previous | Next — Previous 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