Tough when you try to impress folks (with that classification
nonsense) and reality intrudes. Do you often go waving red flags to
attract people's attention to places? Maybe you also assisted in the
naming of hackers.com?
Amazed at childishness.
Enough, already.
Jim Meritt
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Mitnick & the TCP Sequence Number Attack on Shimo
Author: Brain21 <brain21 @
montag33 .
residence .
gatech .
edu> at SMTPINET
Date: 1/12/96 3:20 AM
On Thu, 11 Jan 1996, Jim Meritt wrote:
> Concur. DISNET yes. Internet no.
>
> Unless maybe you/he WANT him arrested....
>
> Or maybe he was just spinning a tale and you fell for it. Or maybe he
> just didn't understand how it was working.
1) I was NOT spinning a tale
2) I DON'T want my father arrested (for WHAT? Pray tell?)
3) I never mentioned that classified info was sent over the net. Read
more carefully before making assumptions. As I stated in my follow-ups
(which really should not have even been necessary. C'mon some of you
assume and inferr WAY too much!!!!) I said that he had top secret
clearance. I said that the company that he worked for (a DoD
subcontractor) kept in touch w/ it's other offices over the net. I said
that they did not use encryption. I inferred that netcom was not
secure. I said that I was not allowed to know his email address (company
policy) (that's why I got him one plus a butload of software for
Christmas a year ago).
Now, please show me where I stated that he or his company did, in fact,
send ANY classified documents over the net! Guess what? You can't!
Cause I never said that! You just assumed that that was what I meant. I
said in follow-up posts that it was, in fact, possible for someone to
perhaps mention something by accident (BTW, I never said that that did
happen, I just mentioned that the possibility was there) just like that
OTHER poster had mentioned. I alluded to the fact that *I* thought that
the mere possibility of someone inadvertantly saying something was there,
and that I thought that in and of itself was insecure. I thought that
they should have had NO net connection, at least in the capacity that
they did have it. My point was that security is NOT the first thing on
everyone's mind, even when it sometimes should be.
Now, take these posts and try to get him arrested. Let me know when the
lawyers stop laughing at the evidence that you present because it is
comprised purely of assumptions and conjecture (and any other
redundancies that you can think of).
I don't mean for these comments to sound snied, but c'mon. Get real, and
stop interpreting what you THINK someone said, especially when you say
such inane things as "unless yoou/he WANT him arrested"!!!!
Sorry about the bandwidth on this one. I consider this issue dead
because of what it has become, and how many completely missed my point to
begin with (though not all).
Chuckling in amazement,
Brain21
|
|
