Pen Tester Moderator attitude

Hey @smacz What kind of statement is that? Take a step back dude. That is one bad attitude you have.

EDIT: Forced to soften the tone here.


This is not what your job is as a mod @smacz You dont shut down a discussion because you dont like it.

1 Like

Agreed, closing the thread felt like a knee jerk reaction. The guy had a point, I was about to reply but couldn’t since it was closed.


No, thats inexperience and emotional immaturity. He needs to apoligise to @ifindproblems and stay out of the way if he doesnt like the discussion.

1 Like

That statement was uncalled for. I edited it out.

However, I stand by closing the thread. If he wants to attack a computer based not on what services it’s providing, but that a connection can be established, he can go to any WiFi coffee house and pwn some n00bs.

I welcome pentesters who are looking at the network. I do not welcome hooligans who are looking to prey on people using layer 2/3 tricks.

1 Like

Hey @moderators please reopen the discussion.

“I” this …“I” that… This is NOT the " @smacz forum " although he may think is. Hes outta line.

Well yeah but that’s the point of having a discussion, so we can point it out.

calling me a hooligan now…great

You are out of line and how you draw those conclusions demonstrates your inability to unsderstand whats REALLY going on. You are a hooligan.

1 Like

Let’s keep it a bit cool folks. We are all humans. Flag whatever you disagree with and it will end up at @moderators. Give it a little time and we’ll do what we think is the right thing.


Yeah… sorry on behalf of the forum for that. But let me suggest something to you. Start a new topic and be less devils advocate and more inquisitive until every gets use to your cockiness. The challenges are welcome and necessary and if you have the capacity to get involved, do it, because Maidsafe needs it. But be genuine.

Good luck

1 Like

ok thanks !..

THe OP wasnt being a knob. He was being cocky and the mod slams him for no reason. As a matter of principle reopen the thread.

Lol, reminds me of the old @smacz, who I would have intense arguments with here on the forums a while ago. PtP etc.

You’ve been quiet for a while, but it’s funny to see the temper hasn’t left :slight_smile: nor has mine, by the way :stuck_out_tongue: :wink:

@whiteoutmashups those moderators eh! :wink:


They’ve grown on me :slight_smile:

'Specially Mr. P!

1 Like

For my part the topic can reopen.


I am for reopening the thread as well.

Although it irked me that he was throwing hypothetical attacks that doesn’t apply at all, without even bothering to research the target itself, which simply showed a total disregard of basic forum etiquette (use the damn search button and read the wiki)
If his first reaction wasn’t to deeply research about how the system was designed to find its flaws, I really wonder about his discipline and professionalism.

But in any case, I welcome the initiative and I hope his unorthodox approach serendipitously finds some overlooked bugs. But please, go spend a week learning about how the Safe Network has been designed and come back to make some relevant questions, will ya?
Make a threat model, find actual attack vectors that are relevant and hack the shit out of it.

I think he was mostly just misunderstood. What he said is true, when you connect to Safe you expose your IP address to your close group, therefore someone in your close group could use that IP address to launch an attack against you. So he is indeed correct, but there’s no difference with other peer to peer network or even IRC client as @smacz pointed out to me. So while it’s true that you can get a lot of potential address IP to attack by connecting and disconnecting from Safe over and over again, there’s not that much you can do with just an address IP.

1 Like

yes. agree. and he’s cocky. He deserves to be heard and challenged. He could well contribute. Lets hope it works for everyone.

Bring it on @ifindproblems :slight_smile:

1 Like