From: "Geo." 

Rich, the process does not complete after IE updated because the process
requires 3 exploits to complete and the IE update addresses one (possibly
2) of those exploits.

Geo.

"Rich"  wrote in message news:3e303122$1{at}w3.nls.net...
   No diversion.  You must be projecting your own behavior.  I'm pointing
out that all of these are just as responsible as WMP and like WMP not the
source of the vulnerability.

   George and maybe others here are using the flawed logic that any
component of a complex process can be claimed to be the vulnerable step. 
He tried to justify it by claiming that if he disables the component he
selected without changing anything else the process can not complete.  This
is also true of all the examples I provided.  What George ignored though it
was pointed out to him many times is that if the IE update to which I
referred him many times also is applied, nothing else is changed, and
nothing is disabled, the process can not complete.  This is because the
vulnerability does not reside in any of the other components from the power
supply to WMP but in the one thing that changed stops this process.

Rich

  "John Cuccia"  wrote in message
news:r3a03vsmr5n4auepe86empsd0n2jjt6nvq{at}4ax.com...
  Anything for a diversion.

  On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:33:01 -0600, "Randy H"
   wrote:

  >It's more like a totally correct, but totally useless reposne.
  >
  >"John Cuccia"  wrote in message
  >news:6bot2vs6h2r42r5u1sm4odpkqke4hid9ai{at}4ax.com...
  >> Doesn't spinning like that make you dizzy?
  >>
  >> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:15:29 -0800, "Rich"  wrote:
  >>
  >> >   The user.  The HTTP protocol.  The electricity that powers the
  >computer.  The warmth of the sun.  And more.  Remove any one of these
from
  >the complex scenario and nothing happens.  Like WMP none of these are the
  >source of the vulnerability.
  >>
  >>
  >

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4