Re: [Full-disclosure] PWCK Overflow POC Code Redhat/Suse older versions or something (maybe later too)

[James Tucker <jftucker@xxxxxxxxx>]

<spam>

On 5/9/05, Micheal Espinola Jr <michealespinola@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Is it just me, or is it hilarious that this "discussion" is generating
> sponsored links in Gmail for "World of Warcraft" ?

Well at least that's got a point. No wait, I forgot the phrase
"slightly more of".

Oh no wait again, we're being syntactically pedantic aren't we, so is
that a phrase?

The english language sucks (and I don't even speak another human
language), once you realise this half the argument should disappear to
acceptance that you are required in english to attempt to decipher the
true meaning of a communication (and you wonder why NL parsers are so
shit?).

As far as programatic efficiency is concerned, hardcoded values are
FAST and can have PURPOSE. I'm not getting involved in the specific
argument as I have no interest in this code. If you want to write
something using this exploit, you'd be wanting to re-write it anyway
so does it really matter?

Most of the code that comes out of this list could be considered 'bad'
anyway, but then how many people do you know who really write beutiful
code?

Next time why not deliver your exploit PoC's in Kye, then you wont get
stupid comments about pointless symantic possibilities as most idiots
can't handle programming in a two dimensional space, and moreover the
run time can look really pretty.

Welcome to the world of wasted bits (spot the acronymic pattern
potentially about to  strengthen the adverts rank).

Hmm... spamming to increase one's presence on "related links" or
"related products", now come the conspiracy theorists. (Handbag
deployed).

</spam>
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/