Editing explain xkcd talk:Advertise Here
|
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
== Hacking themed/related sites not encouraging damaging activity == | == Hacking themed/related sites not encouraging damaging activity == | ||
| − | I am considering taking out an advert for my hacking themed site, Haaksploits, which I hope to have up and running in a MVP state within a month. The focus is on using computers in new and exciting ways, which includes some focus on traditional penetration testing techniques such as cross-site scripting, password brute forcing, port scanning and SQL injection -- which of course do have legitimate commercial outlets; far more, indeed, than ever was the case previously --, as well as information on security and general data-gathering, and basic tutorials on things like Linux, C++ and similar. Some reference to Mr Robot may also exist here and there :op. To this end would it be possible to get further definition on what would be considered an 'exploit' etc or if there may be some leeway on this, if the site can be proven to be trustworthy and responsible in its disclosures? To be clear there will be nothing mentioned on the site that doesn't a) have a legitimate use b) encourages illegal activity. | + | I am considering taking out an advert for my hacking themed site, Haaksploits, which I hope to have up and running in a MVP state within a month. The focus is on using computers in new and exciting ways, which includes some focus on traditional penetration testing techniques such as cross-site scripting, password brute forcing, port scanning and SQL injection -- which of course do have legitimate commercial outlets; far more, indeed, than ever was the case previously --, as well as information on security and general data-gathering, and basic tutorials on things like Linux, C++ and similar. Some reference to Mr Robot may also exist here and there :op. To this end would it be possible to get further definition on what would be considered an 'exploit' etc or if there may be some leeway on this, if the site can be proven to be trustworthy and responsible in its disclosures? To be clear there will be nothing mentioned on the site that doesn't a) have a legitimate use b) encourages of illegal activity. |
With these things in mind, would the site likely be accepted as valid, would the name potentially need to be changed, or would there be any other stipulations, including removal of some of the previously outlined content (perhaps 'walling some of it off' with a different site name and alternative branding)? At this stage of development a full rebrand wouldn't be *too* difficult, and the main pain points of re-registering the SSL with the domain name might even fix some minor issues I've been having with the cert chain. | With these things in mind, would the site likely be accepted as valid, would the name potentially need to be changed, or would there be any other stipulations, including removal of some of the previously outlined content (perhaps 'walling some of it off' with a different site name and alternative branding)? At this stage of development a full rebrand wouldn't be *too* difficult, and the main pain points of re-registering the SSL with the domain name might even fix some minor issues I've been having with the cert chain. | ||
