On Tue, 08 May 2001 02:04:48 -0700, George Toft
<
george@georgetoft.com> wrote:
>In the interest of maintaining a professional list, and a professional
>image, I would appreciate this type of posting not continue. It has no
>place here.
Would it have been equally as less professional to have shown a Linux
exploit?
[...]
>Highlighting Microsoft's inability to
>patch the same overflow from one IIS version to the next does not
>favorably promote Linux at all - in fact, it continues the negative
>"Hacker OS" image that so many are working to overcome.
This line of reasoning makes no sense. If MS has a quality issue we
should not discuss it because others have taken advantage of the
error/weakness and we thereby become guilty by some loose form of
association?
>Perhaps I'm showing my age, but I don't see how making some underpaid[1]
>NT admin's...
Underpaid! According to the link below,
"The average reported salary was $65,528, and the overall median was
$63,000."
[...]
>References:
>1. SANS Salary Survey,
>http://www.sans.org/newlook/publications/salary2000.htm, note 10.
>2. Security Portal,
>http://securityportal.com/articles/ntspseven20010507.html
>3. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030
Mike
(text/plain)