From: "Rich"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0060_01C391B7.E244D3B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I can give one specific bit that is well known that distinguishes the =
two. The second problem was specific to popup windows. It doesn't =
matter though. The simple fact that the first update fixed the first =
problem and not the one disclosed afterwards is demonstration enough = that
they are different.
Rich
"Ellen K" wrote in message =
news:c09bb0.4da8a6{at}harborwebs.com...
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.
> ------=3D_NextPart_000_00DF_01C3912B.E2F93530
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> They aren't the same. Simple logic makes this clear. That should =
be =3D
> obvious because the first update fixed the problem that was reported =
at =3D
> that time but not the problem that was not reported. If they were =
the =3D
> same problem there would not be an update that corrected one but not =
the =3D
> other. If you want specifics you will need to ask someone =
irresponsible =3D
> enough to publicize information that would put you and others at =
risk. =3D
> I would not ask George because he has already demonstrated he is =3D
> clueless and you shouldn't trust any claims he makes on this or =
similar =3D
> subjects.
> Rich
> "Ellen K." wrote in message =3D
> 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 =
=3D
> capable of counting to two. I'll ignore your remaining drivel.
>>=20
>> Rich
>>=20
>> "Geo." wrote in message =3D
> news:3f875390$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Two object type exploits so two patches? Well there are frellin how =
=3D
> many
>> versions of windows so I guess there are actually more like a half =
=3D
> dozen
>> different patches then? Man talk about a stretch..
>>=20
>> Geo.
>>=20
>> "Rich" wrote in message news:3f871ffe$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> You are using the singular "object type exploit" when if you =3D
> were honest
>> you would use the accurate plural "object type
exploits". There =
=3D
> were two
>> and they were distinct. The second was only reported =3D
> (irresponsibly so)
>> only after the fix was released for the first.
>>=20
>> Now whether or not it is uncommon for you or others to lie, that =
=3D
> is
>> something you should consider for yourself.
>>=20
>> Rich
>>=20
>> "Geo." wrote in message =3D
> 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 =3D
> garbage
>> and
>> posting it here claiming to be the truth, you are right. I don't =
=3D
> do
>> that.<<
>>=20
>> I'm not going to argue it with you, everyone here is aware of the =
=3D
> object
>> type exploit and two patches. Also this is not uncommon, from =3D
> just today:
>> (please note the "still vulnerable" comment)
> ------=3D_NextPart_000_00DF_01C3912B.E2F93530
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>
> charset=3D3Diso-8859-1">
>
>
>
>
> They aren't the =
=3D
> same. Simple=3D20
> logic makes this clear. That should be obvious because the =
first =3D
> update=3D20
> fixed the problem that was reported at that time but not the problem =
=3D
> that was=3D20
> not reported. If they were the same problem there would not be =
an =3D
> update=3D20
> that corrected one but not the other. If you want specifics =
you =3D
> will need=3D20
> to ask someone irresponsible enough to publicize information that =
would =3D
> put you=3D20
> and others at risk. I would not ask George because he has =
already=3D20
> demonstrated he is clueless and you shouldn't trust any claims he =
makes =3D
> on this=3D20
> or similar subjects.
>
> Rich
>
> style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
=3D
> BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> "Ellen K." < =3D
> =
href=3D3D"72322.1016{at}compuserve.com=">mailto:72322.1016{at}compuserve.com">72322.1016{at}compuserve.com=
&g=3D
> t;=3D20
> wrote in message =3D
> =
href=3D3D"news:vpakov83l7lc459s6fcumk3fq4un0rmiqk{at}4ax.com">news:vpakov83l=
7l=3D
> c459s6fcumk3fq4un0rmiqk{at}4ax.com...I=3D20
> would be interested to read an explanation of how the two=3D20
> problemsdiffer.On Fri, 10 Oct 2003
18:40:01 -0700, =
"Rich"=3D20
> <{at}> wrote in message< =3D
> =
href=3D3D"3f875dd7$1{at}w3.nls.net>:mailto:3f875dd7$1{at}w3.nls.net">3f875dd7$1{at}w3.nls.net>:
><=3D
>> > =3D20
> Two different problems. Two different fixes. Simple for =
=3D
> someone=3D20
> capable of counting to two. I'll ignore your remaining=3D20
>
drivel.>>Rich>>
"Geo." <
href=3D3D"georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote in =
=3D
> message =3D
> =
href=3D3D"news:3f875390$1{at}w3.nls.net">news:3f875390$1{at}w3.nls.net...=3D
> > =3D20
> Two object type exploits so two patches? Well there are frellin =
how=3D20
> many> versions of windows so I guess
there are actually =
=3D
> more like=3D20
> a half dozen> different patches then? Man
talk about =
a=3D20
> stretch..>>
Geo.>> "Rich" =
=3D
> <{at}>=3D20
> wrote in message =3D
> =
href=3D3D"news:3f871ffe$1{at}w3.nls.net">news:3f871ffe$1{at}w3.nls.net...=3D
> > =3D20
> You are using the singular "object type exploit" when if you =
were=3D20
> honest> you would use the accurate plural
"object =
type=3D20
> exploits". There were two>
and they were =3D
> distinct. =3D20
> The second was only reported (irresponsibly
so)> only =
=3D
> after the=3D20
> fix was released for the =3D
>
first.>>
Now=3D20
> whether or not it is uncommon for you or others to lie, that =3D
> is> =3D20
> something you should consider for =
yourself.>> =3D20
>
Rich>>
"Geo." <
href=3D3D"fake{at}barkdom.com>">mailto:fake{at}barkdom.com">fake{at}barkdom.com>
wrote in =
=3D
> message =3D
> =
href=3D3D"news:3f86ecee$1{at}w3.nls.net">news:3f86ecee$1{at}w3.nls.net...=3D
> > =3D20
> "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message =3D
> =
href=3D3D"news:3f86e90a$1{at}w3.nls.net">news:3f86e90a$1{at}w3.nls.net...=3D
> > =3D20
> >> I'm truthful. If you
mean that you don't =
=3D
> see me=3D20
> making up garbage>
and> =
posting =3D
> it here=3D20
> claiming to be the truth, you are right. I don't =3D
> do> =3D20
>
that.<<>>
I'm not going to =
argue =3D
> it with=3D20
> you, everyone here is aware of the
object> =
=3D
> type=3D20
> exploit and two patches. Also this is not uncommon, from just=3D20
> today:> (please note
the "still =
vulnerable"=3D20
> comment)
------=_NextPart_000_0060_01C391B7.E244D3B0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I can
give one specific =
bit that is=20
well known that distinguishes the two. The second problem was =
specific to=20
popup windows. It doesn't matter though. The simple
fact = that the=20
first update fixed the first problem and not the one disclosed = afterwards is=20
demonstration enough that they are different.
Rich
"Ellen K" <Ellen.K{at}harborwebs.com>">mailto:Ellen.K{at}harborwebs.com">Ellen.K{at}harborwebs.com>
=
wrote in=20
message news:c09bb0.4da8a6{at}harborwebs.=
com...You=20
stated that the vulnerabilities were different. Surely you =
can=20
give anexplanation that explains the differences without drawing a =
blueprint of how tocreate an exploit out of
them?> =
From: "Rich"=20
<{at}>> This is a multi-part message in MIME
format.> =
------=3D_NextPart_000_00DF_01C3912B.E2F93530> Content-Type:=20
text/plain;> charset=3D"iso-8859-1"> =
Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20
quoted-printable> They aren't the same. Simple logic =
makes this=20
clear. That should be =3D> obvious because the first =
update fixed=20
the problem that was reported at =3D> that time but not the =
problem that=20
was not reported. If they were the =3D> same problem =
there would=20
not be an update that corrected one but not the =3D> =
other. If you=20
want specifics you will need to ask someone irresponsible =3D> =
enough to=20
publicize information that would put you and others at risk. =
=3D> I=20
would not ask George because he has already demonstrated he is =
=3D>=20
clueless and you shouldn't trust any claims he makes on this or =
similar=20
=3D> subjects.> Rich>
"Ellen K." <72322.1016{at}compuserve.com&g=">mailto:72322.1016{at}compuserve.com">72322.1016{at}compuserve.com&g=
t;=20
wrote in message =3D> news:vpakov83l7l=
c459s6fcumk3fq4un0rmiqk{at}4ax.com...>=20
I would be interested to read an explanation of how the two =
problems>=20
differ.> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:40:01 -0700,
"Rich" <{at}> =
wrote in=20
message> <3f875dd7$1{at}w3.nls.net>:&=">mailto:3f875dd7$1{at}w3.nls.net">3f875dd7$1{at}w3.nls.net>:&=
gt;>=20
Two different problems. Two different fixes. Simple for =
someone=20
=3D> capable of counting to two. I'll ignore your =
remaining=20
drivel.>> >>
Rich>> >> "Geo."
=
<georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote in =
message=20
=3D> news:3f875390$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
>>=20
Two object type exploits so two patches? Well there are frellin how =
=3D>=20
many>> versions of windows so I guess there are actually =
more like a=20
half =3D> dozen>> different
patches then? Man talk =
about a=20
stretch..>> >>
Geo.>> >> =
"Rich"=20
<{at}> wrote in message news:3f871ffe$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
>>=20
You are using the singular "object type exploit" when if you =
=3D> were=20
honest>> you would use the accurate plural
"object type=20
exploits". There =3D> were
two>> and they were=20
distinct. The second was only reported =3D> =
(irresponsibly=20
so)>> only after the fix was released for the =
first.>>=20
>> Now whether or not it is uncommon for you or others to =
lie, that=20
=3D> is>> something you should
consider for=20
yourself.>> >>
Rich>> >> =
"Geo." <fake{at}barkdom.com>">mailto:fake{at}barkdom.com">fake{at}barkdom.com>
wrote in =
message=20
=3D> news:3f86ecee$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
>>=20
"Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:3f86e90a$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
>>=20
>> I'm truthful. If you mean
that you don't =
see me=20
making up =3D> garbage>>
and>> posting it =
here=20
claiming to be the truth, you are right. I don't =3D>=20
do>>
that.<<>> >>
I'm not going to =
argue=20
it with you, everyone here is aware of the =3D> =
object>> type=20
exploit and two patches. Also this is not uncommon, from =3D> =
just=20
today:>> (please note the "still vulnerable" =
comment)>=20
------=3D_NextPart_000_00DF_01C3912B.E2F93530> Content-Type:=20
text/html;> charset=3D"iso-8859-1"> =
Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20
quoted-printable> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC
"-//W3C//DTD HTML =
4.0=20
Transitional//EN">>
<HTML><HEAD>> =
<META=20
http-equiv=3D3DContent-Type content=3D3D"text/html; =3D>=20
charset=3D3Diso-8859-1">> <META
content=3D3D"MSHTML =
6.00.3790.88"=20
name=3D3DGENERATOR>>
<STYLE></STYLE>>=20
</HEAD>> <BODY
bgColor=3D3D#ffffff>>=20
<DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial
size=3D3D2> =
They aren't=20
the =3D> same.
Simple=3D20> logic makes this=20
clear. That should be obvious because the first
=3D>=20
update=3D20> fixed the problem that was reported at that time =
but not the=20
problem =3D> that was=3D20> not
reported. If =
they were the=20
same problem there would not be an =3D>
update=3D20> =
that corrected=20
one but not the other. If you want specifics you
=3D> =
will=20
need=3D20> to ask someone irresponsible enough to publicize =
information=20
that would =3D> put you=3D20> and others at =
risk. I would=20
not ask George because he has already=3D20> demonstrated he is =
clueless=20
and you shouldn't trust any claims he makes =3D> on =
this=3D20> or=20
similar
subjects.</FONT></DIV>>
<DIV><FONT =
face=3D3DArial =
size=3D3D2></FONT> </DIV>>=20
<DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial=20
size=3D3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>> =
<DIV><FONT=20
face=3D3DArial =
size=3D3D2></FONT> </DIV>>=20
<BLOCKQUOTE=3D20> style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; =
PADDING-LEFT: 5px;=20
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =3D> BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; =
MARGIN-RIGHT:=20
0px">> <DIV>"Ellen
K." <<A=3D20> =
=3D>=20
href=3D3D"72322.1016{at}compuserve.com&a=">mailto:72322.1016{at}compuserve.com">72322.1016{at}compuserve.com&a=
mp;g'>mailto:72322.1016{at}compuserve.com">72322.1016{at}compuserve.com</=
A>&g=3D>=20
t;=3D20> wrote in message
<A=3D20> =3D> =
href=3D3D"news:vpakov83l7l=
'>news:vpakov83l7lc459s6fcumk3fq4un0rmiqk{at}4ax.com">news:vpakov83l7l=3D>=20
c459s6=">mailto:c459s6fcumk3fq4un0rmiqk{at}4ax.com...I=3D20">c459s6=
fcumk3fq4un0rmiqk{at}4ax.com</A>...</DIV>I=3D20>=20
would be interested to read an explanation of how the two=3D20> =
problems<BR>differ.<BR><BR>On
Fri, 10 Oct 2003 =
18:40:01=20
-0700, "Rich"=3D20> <{at}>
wrote in=20
message<BR><<A=3D20>
=3D> href=3D3D"3f875dd7$1{at}w3.nls.net>:<=">mailto:3f875dd7$1{at}w3.nls.net">3f875dd7$1{at}w3.nls.net>:<=
BR'>
gt;:<BR><=3D>>=20
> =3D20> Two different =
problems. Two=20
different fixes. Simple for =3D>
someone=3D20> =
capable of=20
counting to two. I'll ignore your remaining=3D20>=20
=
drivel.<BR>><BR>>Rich<BR>><BR&g=
t;> =20
"Geo." <<A=3D20>
href=3D3D"georger{at}nls.net>'>mailto:george=">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>'>mailto:george=
r{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net</A>>=20
wrote in =3D> message <A=3D20>
=3D> =
href=3D3D"news:3f875390$1{at}w3.nls.net...news:3f875390$1{at}w3.nls.net">news:3f875390$1{at}w3.nls.net</A>...&l=
t;BR>=3D>=20
> =3D20> Two object type exploits so two =
patches? Well=20
there are frellin how=3D20>
many<BR>> =
versions of=20
windows so I guess there are actually =3D> more =
like=3D20> a half=20
dozen<BR>> different patches then?
Man talk =
about=20
a=3D20>
stretch..<BR>><BR>>
=
Geo.<BR>><BR>>
"Rich" =3D>=20
<{at}>=3D20> wrote in message
<A=3D20> =
=3D>=20
href=3D3D"news:3f871ffe$1{at}w3.nls.net...news:3f871ffe$1{at}w3.nls.net">news:3f871ffe$1{at}w3.nls.net</A>...&l=
t;BR>=3D>=20
> =3D20>
You are =
using the=20
singular "object type exploit" when if you were=3D20>=20
honest<BR>> you would use the
accurate plural =
"object=20
type=3D20> exploits". There were=20
two<BR>> and they were
=3D>=20
distinct. =3D20> The second was only reported =
(irresponsibly=20
so)<BR>> only =3D> after =
the=3D20> fix was=20
released for the =3D>=20
=
first.<BR>><BR>> &=
amp;nbsp;=20
Now=3D20> whether or not it is uncommon for you or others to =
lie, that=20
=3D>
is<BR>> =3D20>
something you =
should=20
consider for=20
yourself.<BR>><BR>> =3D20>=20
Rich<BR>><BR>>
=
"Geo."=20
<<A=3D20> href=3D3D"fake{at}barkdom.com>'>mailto:fake=">mailto:fake{at}barkdom.com">fake{at}barkdom.com>'>mailto:fake=
{at}barkdom.com">fake{at}barkdom.com</A>>=20
wrote in =3D> message <A=3D20>
=3D> =
href=3D3D"news:3f86ecee$1{at}w3.nls.net...news:3f86ecee$1{at}w3.nls.net">news:3f86ecee$1{at}w3.nls.net</A>...&l=
t;BR>=3D>=20
> =3D20>
"Rich" =
<{at}>=20
wrote in message <A=3D20> =3D>
href=3D3D"news:3f86e90a$1{at}w3.nls.net...news:3f86e90a$1{at}w3.nls.net">news:3f86e90a$1{at}w3.nls.net</A>...&l=
t;BR>=3D>=20
> =3D20>=20
>> I'm
truthful. If you =
mean that=20
you don't =3D> see me=3D20> making up=20
garbage<BR>> =20
and<BR>>
posting =
=3D> it=20
here=3D20> claiming to be the truth, you are
right. I =
don't=20
=3D>
do<BR>> =3D20>=20
=
that.<<<BR>><BR>> &n=
bsp; =20
I'm not going to argue =3D> it
with=3D20> you, everyone =
here is=20
aware of the
object<BR>>
=
=3D>=20
type=3D20> exploit and two patches. Also this is not uncommon, =
from=20
just=3D20> =
today:<BR>>
(please=20
note the "still vulnerable"=3D20>=20
=
comment)<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0060_01C391B7.E244D3B0--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
SEEN-BY: 633/267 270
@PATH: 379/45 1 633/267
|