Re: [Full-disclosure] security industry software license

["M.B.Jr." <marcio.barbado@xxxxxxxxx>]

Again,
you're trying to solve an issue looking at the consequences, whereas
your "license scheme" suggestion should lay on the causes;
as I wrote before, focusing consequences in this case, brings along no
easy solutions.

And by the way, why insistently and specifically targeting Metasploit?
That is a much broader issue.


Best regards,



On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:00 PM, n3td3v <xploitable@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The intelligence about who downloads metasploit is already there, but
> currently it is not actionable intelligence.
>
> The license scheme would start to make that intelligence actionable,
> without the scheme, you've got intelligence sitting there that can't
> be used in an actionable way.
>
> Its all about making intelligence that is already held actionable.
>
> You've got known cyber criminals and terrorists downloading
> metasploit, but no legislation in place where the good guys can
> benefit and the bad guys be lockered out.
>
> We got to get this situation sorted, the intelligence is there, but
> nothing actionable can be done with it.
>
> We've got to get this license scheme implemented sooner rather than later.
>
> n3td3v
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>



-- 
Marcio Barbado, Jr.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/