** Sometime around 09:45 -0500 02/11/2003, Steve Werby said:
>"Nick Simicich" <njs@scifi.squawk.com> wrote:
>>** Sometime around 14:19 -0500 02/10/2003, Steve Werby said:
>
> >>Anyway, I just don't give any security alert creedence if it uses the
> >>phrase "evil spammers" not once, but twice. Redundant, don't you think?
> >
> >It may well be, but sometimes I don't think it can be said often enough
> >:-).
>
>I'm with you on that. I was just making light of the fact that the word
>"evil" in "evil spammers" is redundant. <g>
It certainly is. However, I agree with the sentiment in your first
post. IMO, the use of the word "evil" attempts to pass judgment --
and the purpose of a security alert is not to pass judgment, but to
objectively summarize a vulnerability. I'd feel the same way if the
security alert used the phrase "evil hackers." We can probably all
agree that spammers (hackers, pedophiles, [1] etc.) are evil -- but
stating that in a security alert is unnecessary and dilutes the
apparent validity of the alert.
Of course, in this case, the "security alert" was B.S., anyway.
--
__________________________________________________________________________
Vince Sabio vince@vjs.org
[1] Reference to Dubya's "Axis of Evil" elided to avoid the obvious
political commentary that would ensue. <g>
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
