Paolo Bonzini said:
This is yet another unsubstantiated position statement. The proof
of the DoS has been posted several times now in a variety of
circumstances.
That's not what a DoS is. Please stop beating this dead horse.
To claim the denial of service to tor users is *not* a DoS is to "beat
a dead horse". Your claim was repeated several times already by
Alfred, and most recently defeated here:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/security-discuss/2017-03/msg00078.html
Your Hollywood/mass-media understanding of DoS is incorrect, and does correspond with the broader meaning used in the security discipline.
The security discipline is not just about countering malicious
attacks. If someone trips over a power cord and knocks a server
offline, even that is a DoS (however accidental).
Your unsupported position statement is both irrelevant and desperate.
Grasping at straws to have a security problem falsely appear out of
scope to laypeople with the same misunderstanding is a waste of time.
Even security students with an elementary understanding of the
discipline are tought that *availability* is absolutely fundamental to
the practice, and that loss thereof is a security problem.
I have removed gnu-system-discuss, in my (perhaps over-confident) hope
that fewer security-unaware readers will try to beat the same dead
horse you are.
--
Please note this was sent anonymously, so the "From:" address will be unusable. List archives will be monitored.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)