Isn't this rather a "Chicken Little" ("The sky is falling!") approach?
I certainly get enough forwarded forwarded (hoax) virus "warnings" from well-meaning friends who have no clue where to check on the accuracy and invariably end up responding to a (long) list of addressees (since they also haven't a clue about BCC) listing URLs where they can go see that the message was a hoax.
I should think RESPONSIBLE reporting would involve taking the time to check the accuracy of the story before passing it on.
If I understand the charter of this list, it is to exchange information about anomalies leading to early detection of attacks.
~Gary
----- attributed to <info@safer-hex.com> -----
...[snip]...
then I don't wait until their webmasters wake up but forward it to my readers who expect me to do just that and not wait until I have the first samples in our editorial mail boxes to check if it's real.
period!
Dre.
p.s. I'm aware that many a/v vendors sometimes create a hype but we have the policy better to warn to often but ASAP, rather than to warn when it's too late.
--
[ C A M R I N N E T W O R K ]
the jrpamc.com internet information services
[jrpamcat_private] : [http://www.camrin.net]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided by the SecurityFocus ARIS analyzer service.
For more information on this free incident handling, management
and tracking system please see: http://aris.securityfocus.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 30 2001 - 11:31:57 PDT