[Owasp-board] Your Concern?

dinis cruz dinis.cruz at owasp.org
Mon Aug 23 11:31:25 UTC 2010


Fyi,

Brad Empeigne is also giving up arguing with Christian

Dinis Cruz


On 23 August 2010 02:01, Brad Empeigne <brad.empeigne at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Dinis, for your info
>
> -- Brad
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Brad Empeigne <brad.empeigne at gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:16 AM
> Subject: Re: Your Concern?
> To: Christian Heinrich <christian.heinrich at owasp.org>
>
>
> Christian, sorry but i am choosing that this is my last email to you.
> I do not want to go back and fourth with you. Good luck.
>
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Christian Heinrich
> <christian.heinrich at owasp.org> wrote:
> > Brad,
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Brad Empeigne <brad.empeigne at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Hi Christian, i will not go through your script and point out
> >> individual flaws. If the code was for learning, then why wasnt it
> >> available in the first place? We would not be exchanging these emails
> >> if this were true. And you say it is PoC, then the fact you submitted
> >> this Proof of concept code to conferences and presented for around 9
> >> months and after all of that still have so many TODO's should say
> >> enough. I am sorry, but it does really look like a couple hours of
> >> work. If you cant see the point people are making by now, then i dont
> >> think anyone can convince you. You had plenty of time to add some
> >> functionality and fix the TODO's and make it semi interesting. "Proof
> >> of concept" suggests it is some groundbreaking idea and you wrote some
> >> code to demonstrate it. Sorry to say it so bluntly but a Google cache
> >> search written in perl is not groundbreaking.
> >
> > The reason that the TODO weren't closed was that it was a Proof of
> > Concept and the code had a limited shelf life (i.e. September 2009) -
> > why would I waste my time on this when I could contribute to other
> > projects?
> >
> > What "functionality" would you add?
> >
> > The PoC was ground breaking because it advanced the state of the art
> > from the GHDB.
> >
> >> what have you done that gives you a "significant public reputation"?
> >> And how could you even compare the GHDB and your Perl script that is
> >> less than 100 lines of code?
> >
> > So you believe that writing Google Search Queries (i.e. 32 Words) is
> > more technical then writing a Perl Script?
> >
> >> i emailed the Australia list because you were ignoring all of my
> >> private emails after promising to send the code and i thought someone
> >> else on there could help. Why would i email your mailing list when
> >> from what i can see in the archives you were the primary poster? why
> >> would i want to call you when i made a simple enquiry to you
> >> privately, was promised to get the code.... then got ignored.... then
> >> over a month after first contacting you had to read through a lot of
> >> different excuses on email about why you could not release the code??
> >
> > You were never ignored (I didn't have the code and was trying to
> > locate it for you) and the OWASP Project Mailing List was the correct
> > avenue for this.
> >
> > Would you assign an urgent priority to something that doesn't work
> > after September 2009?
> >
> >> i saw an email from Brad Causey saying that you should look at your
> >> attitude on all of this and i strongly think you should take his
> >> advice. Good luck.
> >
> > I would say that Brad has changed his opinion now and now realizes the
> > hidden agenda.
> >
> > Can you just admit that you are a
> > http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll ?
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Christian Heinrich - http://www.owasp.org/index.php/user:cmlh
> > OWASP "Google Hacking" Project Lead - http://sn.im/owasp_google_hacking
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20100823/7cd2d8e7/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list