Forwarded From: Simon Johnson <simon.johnson@shake.net>
[Moderator: Rubbish? E-Mail Rambo's? The page put up by L0pht
seemed to be very straight forward about the events. "The
facts" are you put up their material without crediting
them fully, whether it was a misunderstanding or not.
Without going into a flame war, I will post this to be fair to
you.
As for your cheap shots at the bottom, I think you of all
people know that I am more than fair. I contacted you to get
a better idea of your site before I reviewed it. Instead of
posting my unfavorable contents, I gave you the benefit of
the doubt based on your comments, and you saying that a bigger
sample area would be posted. Checking your page tonight,
I can't help but to notice that you removed the ONE example
of your database instead of adding like you told me. Who is
being fair here?
It does seem to me that you are grasping almost as bad
as ID Software after their latest "mishap". As you say,
"it is now closed".]
Hello,
I am responding to a message posted to InfoSec News by Mea Culpa on 30/4/98.
"[Moderator: I apologize for this being off topic, but this kind
of unprofessional behavior annoys me to no end. The l0pht
has been a role-model in the hacker spirit for more years than
I can count. l0pht team members have dedicated an incredible amount
of time and resources for promoting security in various ways. It is
a shame to see a for-profit company blatantly rip off their material
and present it in such a fashion.]" snip....
The moderators comments above are absolute rubbish. It just goes to show how
easy it is for people to comment on things they know nothing about. I am
sick and tired of dealing with "E-Mail Rambo's" who don't know the facts
before they shoot their mouths off in public forums.
Here are the facts:
When L0phtCrack was introduced we decided to write an article on it to
promote the program. I personally thought the program was excellent and
decided to give it some free publicity. The article was based upon the
documentation that came with L0phtCrack.
Point 1.
Weld (from L0pht) was more than aware of the article TWO MONTHS AGO. When
L0phtCrack was released we notified him of the article he wrote back saying
"Thanks for the news. I will update our pages with a link."
Point 2.
We had never received any complaints about the article from L0pht or from
anyone else until now.
Point 3.
We never claimed that the we were the source of information. If people had
read the article correctly it says "This is how the creators of L0phtCrack
2.0 describe the new release of their powerful Windows NT password cracker".
Point 4.
Instead of informing us that they (the L0pht) had a problem with the
article, Weld decided to write a page on the L0phtCrack Web site.
When someone sent us E-Mail objecting to the how the information was cited,
we immediately took it offline and tried to contact the L0pht. As the
International Telephone Operator informed us they were not listed we sent an
E-Mail to Weld.
Point 5.
When we received E-Mail back from Weld (who informed told us of his
concerns) we immediately changed the page and rectified the situation.
So, maybe next time, Mea Culpa should get his facts right before speaking
about things that:
A. Are off the topic of the list.
B. He knows absolutely nothing about.
C. Are in the process of being rectified.
Lastly I want to say that the whole thing was blown out of proportion and
has been fixed. This is all I am going to the matter. It is now closed.
Regards
Simon Johnson
Technical Director
Shake Communications Pty Ltd
http://www.shake.net
The L0phtCrack site can be visited at:
http://www.l0pht.com/l0phtcrack/
The Shake article can be seen at:
http://www.shake.net/journal/march98/L0pht_march98.htm
-o-
Subscribe: mail majordomo@sekurity.org with "subscribe isn".
Today's ISN Sponsor: Repent Security Incorporated [www.repsec.com]
Received on Mon May 4 11:26:43 1998