[CQ-Contest] Natural Progression [was: CK and stuff]

[Robert Naumann]

Ev,

In your buffer overrun example, you cite a sinister act.

How is that in any way like using a convenient fictitious check in SS or
using a fictitious name in a contest exchange that requires a name?

I think you need to re-think this a bit.

73,

Bob W5OV



-----Original Message-----
From: Ev Tupis [mailto:w2ev at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 6:16 AM
To: CQ-Contest eMail Remailer
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Natural Progression [was: CK and stuff]

In the early days of personal computing, there were no issues with "buffer
overrun" exploits (loosly defined as 'sending data that the computer didn't
expect or "error trap" for') because everyone played nice.  We were all in
it "together".

Then, someone decided to see what else they could do if they purposefully
forced a "buffer overrun".  Sometimes, forcing such errors provided the
perpetrator with unintended access to the host system. After the first
exploitation, other people followed.  The result uncovered uncountable
"security holes" that required patching.

The same thing happens in all industries...and hobbies/competitions.

It appears that "the SS CK" issue is no different.  I seem to remember an HF
contest where you supply your name as a 'check'...where y'all get a kick out
of going on the air with the same name from time to time.  In both cases,
while this is not the intent...the sponsor says that doing so breaks
nothing.  So far, I haven't seen information to the contrary posted.

Regards,
Ev, W2EV


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest