General discussion


Question for LordInfidel

By mrafrohead ·
Hey man, I just saw a post from a LordInfidel on Bugtraq... Was that you???


This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

9 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Hasn't been around too much

by Oz_Media In reply to Question for LordInfidel

mrafrohead, Lord Infidel hasn't been around too much lately, possibly has but hasn't been very active discussion wise.

I wouldn't be surprised if he had moved to a different sandbox for a change of pace.

Try posting to him in the other forum?!

Collapse -

Good idear

by mrafrohead In reply to Hasn't been around too mu ...

That's a good idea Oz about posting there, but I don't think that I'm smart enough to be on that list. Everytime I try to submit something there, the mods shoot it down before I'm even six inches off the ground...

Can't figure out why yet, but that's just how it's been ... ;p

Collapse -

Thats the problem

by Oz_Media In reply to Good idear

A moderator is a single, often biased one way or another, point of view.

THank god, TR lets us take care of ourselves.

Collapse -

Bugtraq is diffrent in that respect

by LordInfidel In reply to Thats the problem

It's geared more towards disclosure though, not a forum like TR that it is unmoderated loose talk,

[which TR is still my sanbox... <the political/religious/(can't connect to my dsl) style discussions don't interest me though>, I'm also on slahdot, but they digress alot also]

As it is it takes several days to get your posts on.... imagine if it was unmoderated, christ, I can only think of the amount of mail I would get.

And hey... don't feel too bad if your post get's rejected by them... I've had numerous posts rejected... it just goes with the territory.

Collapse -

Yep, it was him

by Joseph Moore In reply to Question for LordInfidel

Yeah, I saw that post on Bugtraq, talking about the leaked Windows source code. I started a discussion about that early last week here, and he posted pretty much the same comment there that he did in Bugtraq.
A couple of people kinda picked on his comments, though. He was just expressing his opinion on the fears on getting the code, on its validity.

Collapse -

I concur

by mrafrohead In reply to Yep, it was him

They were kinda sh*theads about his comments...

I wish I had seen the posting here. I would have liked to have been a part of that, I had a lot to say at the time.

But I can say this much, from what I have read about the source and the like it IS the real deal. Though it could have been "modified" before "release" I think that it's safe to assume that majority if not all of it is original.

Though one of the funny things that I keep reading is that people are frustrated that it's not the whole source, so it can't be compiled, but why compile it. We already have the blasted cd's... ;o) From the manufacturer, precompiled.

But anyhow, it's more for just educational reading if you can read that type of stuff I guess... I dunno.

Probably time to switch to Linux though before the kiddies start unvamping their "work".


Collapse -

Yes it was me....

by LordInfidel In reply to Question for LordInfidel

The moderator quickly killed the thread.....

as I was talking to joseph about... My response to everyone never made it back on...

The moderator basically agreed with the point I was trying to make, but also mentioned that he was going to kill any more discussion the the source being leaked.

In my reply back to everyone, which I will post here, mentioned a quip about wondering if M$ was monitoring Bugtraq.... I think that is the real reason why the discussion has been killed.

Off-line I have had positive response to my comments, reinforcing my original statement of saying "Hey,,, don't be in such a rush"....

I've been caught up with a ton of projects here at daytime work and side work....

BTW- 2003 Server Rocks..... They, M$, finally caught on... Turn EVERYTHING off by default.

Collapse -

Bugtraq response

by LordInfidel In reply to Yes it was me....

hey guys... before the flogging (of me) commences....
look at the date I originally sent the post.. 3 1/2 days ago...

this was the point i was trying to make (note Jonathan's reply)

"Who on earth would intentionally compile and install Win2k SP1?"

<don't be in a mad dash to compile it> .
which was before MS released a statement saying it was indeed their source.....!

I was just preaching caution.... that's all.....

i'm sure that someone out there got a hold of the source and then
tried to compile it to see what it does, in a very non secure fashion.
The person who is going to compile it right off the bat is probably not
the type of person who is going to read over every line of code or take the
time to do so in an isolated lab environment.

I personally did not download the source,,,, but take the "what if"
scenario, since it was obviously tarballed for your downloading pleasure,
what if someone maliciously tampered
with the tarball, and then redistributed it, knowing that there was a mass
fever to find downloads of it. (you don't know what's in the tarball until
you unpack it, not to mention you have no way of verifying it's contents)

I totally agree with the independent analysis of source code,
regardless of OS or APP....

but my contention was that you *really* are not sure that what
your downloading is the real deal or not... regardless
of M$'s statement.

side note- you think M$ will be looking over bugtraq to find out who has
downloaded the source without their expressed permission and then pursue them..

Just a thought (-;


<!-- Put favorite obnoxiously witty quote here -->

Collapse -


by csmith In reply to Question for LordInfidel

Ah yes, LordInfidel, you are catching on.
We have maintained honeypots for years.
Could it be Microsoft is finally catching on?
Not likely, but it will give them ideas, and the usual severe lag time that Microsoft exhibits before it adopts (steals?) a new idea, from others, is almost up.
By the way.
If it was a first attempt, it was the usual inept, Microsoft first try. (Ver 1.0)
LordInfidel you have it right.
Win2K SP1 ? They have got to be kidding, or are they just trolling for script kiddies, that would be easy to prosecute?
(Pun intended.)
(All extra commas were added for clarity.)
Regards, Chris

Back to Community Forum
9 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums