Re: Re[2]: [Full-Disclosure] pissed off
From: badpack3t (badpack3t_at_security-protocols.com)
Date: 04/26/03
- Previous message: Cedric Blancher: "Re: Re[2]: [Full-Disclosure] pissed off"
- In reply to: Tamer Sahin: "Re[2]: [Full-Disclosure] pissed off"
- Next in thread: Halil Demirezen: "Re: Re[2]: [Full-Disclosure] pissed off"
- Reply: Halil Demirezen: "Re: Re[2]: [Full-Disclosure] pissed off"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: <ts@securityoffice.net> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 11:55:51 -0400 (EDT)
Tamer,
You really are an idiot aren't you.
>To stress, the
> vulnerability that Badpack3t has found out is a different vulnerability.
and then you say:
>Currently the situation is that;
> Badpack3t has figured out that he published an advisory on the
> vulnerability that does not belong to him and I explained the truth.
I think you need to put that hooka down, and read a little closer. You
dont own any rights to any vulnerabilities. Is this some new law that you
just created or am I mistaken? The vendor fixed the bug you found back in
2002. You need to read the advisory a little closer before you start
sending our your little bull*** emails about copyright laws and whatnot.
I think you would be better off just dropping this because your making
yourself look like a real ass.
-badpack3t
www.security-protocols.com
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> I could not understand why this argument keept on this much. I am
> so busy now a days. I could not find any time to write a response to the
> maillish back after i recieved the mail from Badpack3t. To stress, the
> vulnerability that Badpack3t has found out is a different vulnerability.
>
> However, the one that Secunia has found out, of which all rights
> belong to me, is not a acceptable case. Currently the situation is that;
> Badpack3t has figured out that he published an advisory on the
> vulnerability that does not belong to him and I explained the truth. he
> vulnerability the Badpack3t has found out is different one, however, the
> reaction that he act against secunia is wrong.
>
> I wanted to express this.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tamer Sahin
> http://www.securityoffice.net
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
>
> iD8DBQE+qow8gfeC/CdyvS8RAnwxAJ9XHjhI9Bia+IhWEvf5opzPTuWTVACffD4c
> m3WSr4PwEgpym5+t9blO8qc=
> =8T7K
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
- Previous message: Cedric Blancher: "Re: Re[2]: [Full-Disclosure] pissed off"
- In reply to: Tamer Sahin: "Re[2]: [Full-Disclosure] pissed off"
- Next in thread: Halil Demirezen: "Re: Re[2]: [Full-Disclosure] pissed off"
- Reply: Halil Demirezen: "Re: Re[2]: [Full-Disclosure] pissed off"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]