>>(although I imagine setting criteria will be > > thorny) but I still am leery about purely anonymous posters. > > Why? You see and moderate every post before it gets to the list, and have > the option to refuse posts, or request that a post be rephrased before > allowing it on the list. > How does that address accountability? > If I were being uncharitable, I'd have to say that a paraphrase of > your views on accountability would be: > > People should be identifiable so vendors have somebody to sue, > other than me, or my company. > Hahhaha, ok. If I were being uncharitable I would say you have an over inflated sense of your own entertainment value and a persecution complex. Please point out to me one single instance of a *security* vendor suing anyone (individual or otherwise) for a bad review. > What about vendors being accountable for producing shoddy goods? How > do we distinguish between "This product doesn't run at 100Mbit" being > a valid criticism, or critical damage to a vendor (despite being > true). This seems like another version of "any disclosure is bad". Please do not confuse this with Full Disclosure of vulnerabilities and criticism of products. The two issues are wholey separate and I am guessing you actually do understand the distinction. I have no problem with critical information being posted so long as the poster is accountable for his or her statements. > > There's a difference between polite frank and open discussion, and > newspeak. I'm afraid you've got me there what is newspeak? -al --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Lightning Console aggregates IDS events, correlates them with vulnerability info, reduces false positives with the click of a button, anddistributes this information to hundreds of users. Visit Tenable Network Security at http://www.tenablesecurity.com to learn more. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 11:24:07 PDT