On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:24:07 PDT, "andrew.wallace" said: > Are you trying to say no disclosure will ever come under the profile of cyber > terrorism? No, I'm saying that claiming *every* disclosure *is* "cyber terrorism" is lunacy. I've yet to see *anybody* other than yourself claim that Ormandy's disclosure qualified as terrorism of any sort, cyber or otherwise. That leaves one of two possibilities: 1) Ten years from now, we'll be wondering how all tens of thousands of people in the computer security field totally got it wrong and you were the only one who got it right. 2) The reverse of (1). Hint: Unrecognized geniuses are so frikkin' rare they teach you about them in school. Unrecognized idiots are much more common. (Although I *would* enjoy seeing you come up with a *plausible* example where the disclosure *itself* qualified as terrorism, separate from what uses are made of it. For example - although terrorists have used C-4, the invention of C-4 is not *itself* terrorism. Remember to keep that distinction straight in your scenario).
Attachment:
pgp2oa9osJPVO.pgp
Description: 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/