You stated that the vulnerabilities were different.   Surely you can give an
explanation that explains the differences without drawing a blueprint of
how to create an exploit out of them?

> From: "Rich" 
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> ------=_NextPart_000_00DF_01C3912B.E2F93530
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> They aren't the same.  Simple logic makes this clear.  That should be =
> obvious because the first update fixed the problem that was reported at =
> that time but not the problem that was not reported.  If they were the =
> same problem there would not be an update that corrected one but not the =
> other.  If you want specifics you will need to ask someone irresponsible =
> enough to publicize information that would put you and others at risk.  =
> I would not ask George because he has already demonstrated he is =
> clueless and you shouldn't trust any claims he makes on this or similar =
> subjects.
> Rich
> "Ellen K."  wrote in message =
> news:vpakov83l7lc459s6fcumk3fq4un0rmiqk{at}4ax.com...
> I would be interested to read an explanation of how the two problems
> differ.
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:40:01 -0700, "Rich"  wrote in message
> :
>> Two different problems.  Two different fixes.  Simple for someone =
> capable of counting to two.  I'll ignore your remaining drivel.
>> 
>> Rich
>> 
>> "Geo."  wrote in message =
> news:3f875390$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Two object type exploits so two patches? Well there are frellin how =
> many
>> versions of windows so I guess there are actually more like a half =
> dozen
>> different patches then? Man talk about a stretch..
>> 
>> Geo.
>> 
>> "Rich"  wrote in message news:3f871ffe$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> You are using the singular "object type exploit" when if you =
> were honest
>> you would use the accurate plural "object type exploits".  There =
> were two
>> and they were distinct.  The second was only reported =
> (irresponsibly so)
>> only after the fix was released for the first.
>> 
>> Now whether or not it is uncommon for you or others to lie, that =
> is
>> something you should consider for yourself.
>> 
>> Rich
>> 
>> "Geo."  wrote in message =
> news:3f86ecee$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> "Rich"  wrote in message news:3f86e90a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >>   I'm truthful.  If you mean that you don't see me making up =
> garbage
>> and
>> posting it here claiming to be the truth, you are right.  I don't =
> do
>> that.<<
>> 
>> I'm not going to argue it with you, everyone here is aware of the =
> object
>> type exploit and two patches. Also this is not uncommon, from =
> just today:
>> (please note the "still vulnerable" comment)
> ------=_NextPart_000_00DF_01C3912B.E2F93530
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> 
>  charset=3Diso-8859-1">
> 
> 
> 
> 
>    They
aren't the =
> same.  Simple=20
> logic makes this clear.  That should be obvious because the first =
> update=20
> fixed the problem that was reported at that time but not the problem =
> that was=20
> not reported.  If they were the same problem there would not be an =
> update=20
> that corrected one but not the other.  If you want specifics you =
> will need=20
> to ask someone irresponsible enough to publicize information that would =
> put you=20
> and others at risk.  I would not ask George because he has already=20
> demonstrated he is clueless and you shouldn't trust any claims he makes =
> on this=20
> or similar subjects.
>  
> Rich
>  
>  style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
> BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> "Ellen K." < =
>
href=3D"72322.1016{at}compuserve.com&g=">mailto:72322.1016{at}compuserve.com">72322.1016{at}compuserve.com&g=
> t;=20
> wrote in message  =
>
href=3D"news:vpakov83l7lc459s6fcumk3fq4un0rmiqk{at}4ax.com">news:vpakov83l7l=
> c459s6fcumk3fq4un0rmiqk{at}4ax.com...I=20
> would be interested to read an explanation of how the two=20
> problemsdiffer.On Fri, 10 Oct 2003
18:40:01 -0700, "Rich"=20
> <{at}> wrote in message< =
>
href=3D"3f875dd7$1{at}w3.nls.net>:<=">mailto:3f875dd7$1{at}w3.nls.net">3f875dd7$1{at}w3.nls.net>:<=
>> >  =20
> Two different problems.  Two different fixes.  Simple for =
> someone=20
> capable of counting to two.  I'll ignore your remaining=20
>
drivel.>>Rich>> 
"Geo." <
href=3D"georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote in =
> message  =
>
href=3D"news:3f875390$1{at}w3.nls.net">news:3f875390$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
> > =20
> Two object type exploits so two patches? Well there are frellin how=20
> many>  versions of windows so I guess there
are actually =
> more like=20
> a half dozen>  different patches then? Man
talk about a=20
> stretch..>> 
Geo.>>  "Rich" =
> <{at}>=20
> wrote in message  =
>
href=3D"news:3f871ffe$1{at}w3.nls.net">news:3f871ffe$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
> >    =20
> You are using the singular "object type exploit" when if you were=20
> honest>  you would use the accurate plural
"object type=20
> exploits".  There were two> 
and they were =
> distinct. =20
> The second was only reported (irresponsibly
so)>  only =
> after the=20
> fix was released for the =
>
first.>>    
Now=20
> whether or not it is uncommon for you or others to lie, that =
> is> =20
> something you should consider for
yourself.>> =20
> Rich>>   
"Geo." <
href=3D"fake{at}barkdom.com>">mailto:fake{at}barkdom.com">fake{at}barkdom.com>
wrote in =
> message  =
>
href=3D"news:3f86ecee$1{at}w3.nls.net">news:3f86ecee$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
> >   =20
> "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message  =
>
href=3D"news:3f86e90a$1{at}w3.nls.net">news:3f86e90a$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
> >   =20
> >>   I'm truthful.  If you
mean that you don't =
> see me=20
> making up garbage> 
and>    posting =
> it here=20
> claiming to be the truth, you are right.  I don't =
> do> =20
>
that.<<>>   
I'm not going to argue =
> it with=20
> you, everyone here is aware of the
object>    =
> type=20
> exploit and two patches. Also this is not uncommon, from just=20
> today:>    (please note
the "still vulnerable"=20
> comment)

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5