I'm completely in agreement with everything you're saying, but I don't see how your argument really has much in common with the "anti-sec" BS. There's a lot of

I'm completely in agreement with everything you're saying, but I don't see how your argument really has much in common with the "anti-sec" BS. There's a lot of snake oil security in the world, and the AV publishers and firewall vendors are a big part of it. But there are people doing real security research, actually working on hardening various pieces of software, finding vulnerabilities, etc. It seems like the "anti-sec" people want to shut down real security research, the kind that finds vulnerabilities in software and forces vendors to fix them, with the result that most users would have nothing but snake oil between themselves and the criminals. Of course I think the real motivation behind the "anti-sec" "movement" is transparently obvious: it's less-than-talented black hats who are pissed that usable exploits are being disclosed, meaning they're far less useful for nefarious purposes and get plugged more quickly. They would, I'm sure, prefer a no-disclosure environment where vulnerabilities stayed open for years, and were only known to the crooks.