User talk:77.102.34.125

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

re: BackTrack[edit]

Your edits seem to be your own opinions. One of Wikipedia's core policies is neutrality. See that page for how to edit from a neutral point of view. Smokizzy (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Smokizzy,

No it's not just a biased opinion its the truth, have you seen the directory /secret-cookie on BT2? Know what its for? The Bugs in the releases seem like they have deliberatly been left in each release to sabotage it at a later date.

I for one dont like the idea of my PC turning into a bot-net due to insecure software, the current Kernel is 2.6.21.5 not the version which they released in 14/12/07 which was 2.6.15.5 (2.6.15.5 had already been hacked and exploited before this release.)

Three months later and they are still allowing the distribution of insecure material to 25'000+ members of their community and not one of them has been warned about it.

Thats like opening your front door asking in strangers off the street whilst you put the kettle on and get the biscuits ready.

I'm going to be installing a trusted CC extensions OS not Back|Track 3 something with Controlled Access and Role Based Access Control Protection Profiles at Evaluation Assurance Level 4+ (CAPP & RBACPP @EAL 4+) can Back|Track offer me or its members the same assurance?

One of the files on the release just happens to be the TCP/IP Linux Port Bind trojan left in an unpacked fully functioning state in the directory /Pentest/ oh and Cairo and HAL which are needed by the kernel to prevent bad people doing bad things are missing!

With the vulnerable Samba shares that would be like letting the world into your PC for free but dont despair I am sure they will just make lots of hidden directories called . or .. and none of them would be vicious enough to invoke DCOM and type in rm -rf /*.* at the bash prompt would they? \\

I just felt I should say something as it looks like their allowing their own members of their forum and other parties to download this software in good faith and it is full of more backdoors than Windows VISTA!

Regards

Scribus

77.102.34.125 (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Scribus77.102.34.125 (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008[edit]

Information.png

Hi, the recent edit you made to BackTrack has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Smokizzy (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Smokizzy,

Next thing they'll be telling you it's ethical hacking. It's not ethical to leave 25'000+ users vulnerable on a whim.

Back|Track; If your looking for sustainability and funding, I would suggest a re-marketing stratergy where you assert better attention to the details like staying current with flaws and vulnerabilities within your own structure and look for sustainable growth through better management of security vulnerabilities and sustained updated current software, to invariably not be caught with your pants down releasing an insecure copy of out-dated material which might leave your own members exposed to a security vulnerability.

77.102.34.125 (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)§cribus77.102.34.125 (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)