(this is free-speach copyright, mean like i told that to you freely in
   personal/public talk, so you can do anything to it)

   Q: Why security is bad thing?
   A: In short - hell is totally secure. Do we want live in hell?.. If people
   follow security at first everywhere - probably we will still live in den.
  
   Q: What is nature of security?
   A: Nature of security is restriction, destruction and antagonism to freedom.
   That thing is balance freedom. Wrong is - in current situation - process of
   security - grow much faster then freedom. And that speed is not accident -
   that is artifically stimulated by technology of war. We are now stand on
   fork and choosing between totalitarism or freedom. And governemt always glad
   to help us choose first.
   
   Q: Technology of war in security? What do you mean?
   A: When people improve weapon to beat other people. Other people, of course,
   improving own weapon too. Keyword is "people vs. people".
   
   Q: Who profits from the infosec war?
   A: Security companies do (this is their line of employment). They need to
   use scare tactics to motivate more people and companies into thinking their
   services are not only desirable, but necessary. It's simple Capitalism.
   These corporations make security popular and fashionable, and turn it into a
   consumer pastime. Why can't they carry out their jobs with less glamour?

   Q: How do scriptkiddies help security?
   A:  This is an easy answer. The term was coined as a whip fashioned by
   various "security experts" with which to flog the public. They show us
   depictions of these lawless, rabid, savage kids who are out of control, so
   they can impress upon us the demographic from which they defend us.

   Q: Can I sleep safely at night while Bugtraq is around?
   A: Absolutely not.

   Q: How does Bugtraq help security?
   A:  Bugtraq  serves  as a front for an underground cabal through which
   electronic weapons of mass destruction disseminate amongst scriptkiddies. It
   is also an addictive substance which has hooked admins trying to preserve
   their systems' security without getting owned by the "early bird" defacer
   who  grabs the exploit before their local ISP has been notified of the
   vulnerability. However, even Bugtraq publicizes a false concept of "full
   disclosure," since information about competitors or friends (like @stake) is
   tossed in the trash. Full disclosure simply serves to sate the scriptkid's
   addiction to power, and this addiction is very hard to break. antiSecurity
   aims to help stop that addiction.

   Q: What's wrong with full disclosure?
   A: Full disclosure attempts to contradict the saying "two wrongs don't make
   a right" in the sense that it stimulates criminal activities in order to
   catalyze security awareness. Take the following example:
   An unrestricted maniac runs around the streets, shooting people in the name
   of  improving  security  because he aims to increase the public use of
   bullet-proof vests. And who makes these vests? After everybody is protected
   by  vest  v1,  the  public is complacent, and sales of vest v2 must be
   stimulated by inventing a shotgun which penetrates the first vest. There is
   competition in the vest manufacturing business, so they all profit from the
   development of higher powered munitions. Manufacturers get money, and also
   lobby for pro-homicidal laws in other countries to spread the market, while
   innocent people suffer at their expense. The cycle still doesn't end with
   vest v666, because a newer armor-piercing bullet is in the works. How do you
   end the rat race? Stop full disclosure!

   Q: We should fix all bugs! How could it be otherwise?
   A: Imagine terrorist control nuclear bomb from box on internet, and nobody
   can terminate bomb controlling process to stop countdown. Or your house is
   absolutely secure but you lost key by accident - how you will return in your
   own home? In real world security is always limited - nobody make safe doors
   everywhere and lock them. In case of emergency you will need access w/o
   keys. Absolute security is nonsense. People forgot about that for computers
   and trying to reach it..

   Q: Isn't all hackers is a bad people?
   A:  No! People are different, but probabilty of bad person in 10 or in
   1000000 is different... (hint about script-kids). And i tell you if compare
   hard working person who know cost of own work and idling kid or newbie - who
   will do shit very likely?

   Q: All admins are good/bad people?
   A: No! Think! So don't attack EVERYBODY, and don't protect EVERYBODY! If you
   pretect bastards you are on bastard's side. Do you know BOFH admins are
   exists?

   Q: Why worry about security? Vulnerabilities will always exist and there is
   no absolute protection against them.
   A: Exactly correct. But if problem can't be solved in dumb way, this is
   don't mean it is can't be solved indirect. This is why many of us have
   safeguarded  ourselves  with  security  measures  such as encrypted or
   steganographized filesystems in the case that our sensitive information is
   accessed in an unauthorized manner. Security will never be absolute, but
   technological developments will continue to be made to push possible system
   security as close to absolute system security as possible.
   I  can't  disallow  people come to my computer, but I can make another
   restriction so even if them come they can't access data. I put encrypted
   disk. Side efect is i need always enter password myself and id slower disk
   operation.
   We can fight spam. But we can disable relaying email thru our system for
   unknown.
   Can't stop DDOS attack but can make global tracking system over internet.
   We can't restrict access for one, so we restrict for everybody. This is cost
   of security. More and more progressive restrictions.

   Q: I just love finding bugs, though. What's wrong with that?
   A: Air Force pilots loving flying planes, too. Sometimes they even find
   themselves flying missions over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

   Q:  What  are "grayhats" and how are they different from whitehats and
   blackhats?
   A: Grayhats are indecisive people who consider themselves to be neither
   blackhats nor whitehats, or both blackhat and whitehat. However, being a
   grayhat, is not synonymous to existing in a "healthy medium." Rather, these
   individuals do not pledge allegiance to either side of the controversy, and
   in not doing so, commit blunders that hurt supporters of both viewpoints.

   Q: Is antiSecurity motivated in any part by personal profit?
   A: Can true freedom be reduced to the sole notion of economy? What seems odd
   in all of this is that many of Bugtraq and Packetstorm's followers are
   aficionados of free, open-sourced operating systems which have been provided
   as efficient and stable alternatives to highly commercialized and unduly
   popular OS'es such as Windows. But when it comes to security, they can't
   understand that measures they take towards "freeing information", such as
   full  disclosure actually serves to fuel commercialism in the security
   market. How can we bring this to popular attention?

   Q: Is antiSecurity trying to change the world? Isn't that a bit radical?
   A: Everything is going to sound a bit ambitious at first. But it's got to
   start  somewhere.  So far, we have had manifestos published on the net
   concerning  the ethics of hacking, defacement, and the definition of a
   "hacker",  but  we  have yet to see a comprehensive document or set of
   documents that defines the parameters of anti-disclosure policies. The
   discussion has, up until this point, been an imbalanced one. Generally,
   disclosure is discussed on forums such as Bugtraq, which obviously have a
   predominant pro-disclosure following. Supporters of non-disclosure very
   rarely make similar postings for obvious reasons: they avoid the glare of
   the public limelight. The antiSecurity site is the perfect non-threatening
   environment in which open intellectual discussion relevant to this topic can
   take place. (So in answering the question, yes, we are :)

   Q:  What does antiSecurity suggest we do about people who siphon their
   reputations off the hard work and creativity of others (ie Aleph1, route) ?
   A: This is probably the simplest answer of them all: don't support them.
   Don't subscribe to their mailing lists, don't read their 'zines, don't use
   their software. Who said boycotts won't work on the Internet?

   Q: Is there anything I can do to help?
   A:  Yes!  We would greatly appreciate any assistance. Please email any
   proposals  or suggestions you might have, including essays or rants to
   [1]anti@security.is. Whatever happens, don't post to Bugtraq! If you still
   can't  stop  yourself  from  doing this, try posting fake exploits and
   advisories,  or trojaned code :) Remember that anybody who consciously
   decides to fire a loaded gun at somebody has already decided to accept the
   consequences.

   Q: Give me your root password, or i don't believe you!
   A:  Obviously, you have failed to either read or comprehend any of the
   contents  of this document. You might want to read this FAQ again, but
   there's a chance that won't do you much good.

   [This page was written by the staff of anti.security.is(RIP). All credit to
   them.]