From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id ed19e1e0 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 20:16:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 6811394701; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 06:16:38 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C29493D28; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 06:16:29 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 8EEBC93D28; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 06:16:27 +1000 (AEST) X-Greylist: delayed 398 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at minnie.tuhs.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 06:16:26 AEST Received: from wopr.sciops.net (wopr.sciops.net [216.126.196.60]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADBB893D27 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 06:16:26 +1000 (AEST) Received: (qmail 76471 invoked by uid 1001); 9 Oct 2019 13:09:42 -0700 Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:09:42 -0700 From: Kurt H Maier To: Rob Pike Message-ID: <20191009200942.GA73878@wopr> Mail-Followup-To: Rob Pike , Nigel Williams , TUHS main list References: <1570559927.29337.for-standards-violators@oclsc.org> <2e6e1005-3bbf-5dcc-3fcc-099864c752dc@kilonet.net> <8088e5bd-3530-d3e1-8066-db6ea9389dea@kilonet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [TUHS] Recovered /etc/passwd files X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 09:59:43AM -1000, Rob Pike wrote: > > Interesting though it is, though, I find this hacking distasteful. It was > distasteful back when, and it still is. The attitudes around hackery have > changed; the position nowadays seems to be that the bad guys are doing it > so the good guys should be rewarded for doing it first. That's disingenuous > at best, and dangerous at worst. > And not really relevant to this topic, in fact. It's not like we're sitting around rainbow-tabling someone's Macbook. This stuff is, at this point, of historical interest. "How many decades old must a hash be before it's acceptable to decode it" is a valid question worth answering, but comparing this kind of archaeology to active attack is slightly absurd. khm