Re: [Full-disclosure] Metasploit 3.2 Offers More 'Evil Deeds'
- From: "Michael Simpson" <mikie.simpson@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:19:42 +0100
On 10/10/08, n3td3v <xploitable@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Presumably background checks would include looking for issues
i don't think it should be publicly available, you should need to
register to prove your who you are, have a background check done on
you before you get it.
regarding mental instability such as those which you have professed to
have on public mailing lists repeatedly and often.
Unless it was just more poor me bullsh*t.
"i could have been a contender if it wasn't for those nasty sec
professionals. i could have completed my Abertay uni course and become
a real man with real skillz rather than being a cut'n'paste w*nk on an
un-moderated sec list".
Note to any potential employers of Andrew Wallace, reading/trolling
seclists/newsgroups does not a cybersecurity professional make.
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
- Prev by Date: [Full-disclosure] Aussie Hacker dummy spit
- Next by Date: [Full-disclosure] DoS Vulnerability in Zachtronics Manufactoid
- Previous by thread: Re: [Full-disclosure] Metasploit 3.2 Offers More 'Evil Deeds'
- Next by thread: Re: [Full-disclosure] Metasploit 3.2 Offers More 'Evil Deeds'