Re: full disclosure is an intelligence blackhole
McGhee, Eddie <Eddie.McGhee <at> ncr.com>
2010-03-01 08:53:53 GMT
Come on mate seriously its getting boring, if any serious security threats are out there then drop the info
and man up, stop with the bullshit of making netdev a poor internet meme, because that's all it is..
-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-bounces <at> lists.grok.org.uk
[mailto:full-disclosure-bounces <at> lists.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of intel unit
Sent: 01 March 2010 08:06
To: full-disclosure <at> lists.grok.org.uk
Subject: [Full-disclosure] full disclosure is an intelligence blackhole
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
John Cartwright is perpetrating global conflict by censoring n3td3v's 0days and commenting.
Opinion by Andrew Wallace. Published by a believer in free speech who knows Andrew Wallace is an super spy
expert. Luyk a jelly samwich amirite?
Is banning people from a mailing list a national security risk?
We haven't been on the mailing list since January 2009, although there have been plenty of hackers trying to
impersonate us.
For sure the impersonations are misleading, and we would like to ask, is banning people from a mailing list a vulnerability?
Let's just say we haven't been able to release any information to the public for over a year now.
We don't have anywhere we can post information.
Isn't it a security risk to ban one the biggest security & intelligence groups in the UK from posting?
We think so, and why would you want to create a climate where there are plenty n3td3v wanna be's posting to the
mailing list, but no actual intelligence on what we're upto, what we've been researching or anything like that.
A security & intelligence group with over 6000 security professionals in jobs around the world who make up
the n3td3v group, banned from making announcements relating to national security matters.
A whole year of no information getting out to the security industry about the vulnerabilities in national
security and other research that we've been getting upto.
None of that has been post, its all been supressed.
By who? One man decided to risk security by banning one of the largest security groups in the United Kingdom.
We were treated badly on the mailing list, it wasn't us in the wrong, we only defended ourselves and the
integrity of our group from people who were obviously wanting an argument.
We aren't playing around, we are grown adults who are serious about security & intelligence.
We were made out to be something that we weren't, its not nice to be treated like that.
It's why the mailing list can't be taken seriously and poses a risk to national security.
Because the people who do research security aren't able to post on the mailing list.
And I don't know why more people haven't spoken out about an organisation as big as n3td3v being banned from
the mailing list, its a risk to national security.
We don't post our intelligence anywhere else apart from the mailing list we've been banned from, and we
don't give out any signals intelligence about what we are getting upto, we're very careful about that.
The only opportunity to find out what the n3td3v security and intelligence group were upto was being
subscribed to the mailing list and reading our emails.
Andrew is banned, and banned with that are the voices of over 6000 and more researchers, security
consultants and many others.
Is banning n3td3v from Full-disclosure mailing list a national security issue? Of course it is.
National security has been at risk for over a year and will remain at risk... because the information flow
has been cut off.
Who will be to blame? One man who runs the mailing list, one man will need to live with himself, his name is John Cartwright.
He has cut off a major security research and intelligence group on purpose, I don't think he cares about
national security.
Can he live with himself?
We've been sitting in our offices wondering this for over a year, we've held security conferences with our
members and other stuff and remain frustrated that we've been cut off from communicating with the
security industry.
Yours faithfully,
n3td3v security
& intelligence group
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Charset: UTF8
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 3.0
wpwEAQMCAAYFAkuLdX8ACgkQwGoky+I7EouDgAP5AUjZ2+mKCx4dduWJlNWgAN8IwnkL
PqokbvRhGDeHoWCBWeTjqoYxh49Z2fzA4EIcrtmL7miGfXicLHWJyBoSriMUFL97IYe3
hAziWzbIanVTbqftrz1ayRVx0k3vdu/5Hwocda6lCmgivdLjWhrL0UaKby3LQbc1nBqB
mCK69YQ=
=xM2C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Pavel and Dan, truly it is you who instruct us by your example!
Did you guys catch our talk at Shmoo 2010 yet? We've got to get that
online somehow.
> Any attempt to formalize integrity properties SSL/TLS is supposed to
> guarantee would inevitably lead to something along the lines of "all data
RSS Feed