From: "Geo." 

So you consider saying an IE patch stops the process from completing as
unambiguous information? In a process that uses 3 exploits where breaking
any one of the three will stop the process from completing?

Media player still fires off an IE about window which reads the file media
player wrote to disk, that exploit has not been patched. What IE does with
the file has been patched. What this means is that it's still possible to
create a media player file that starts up IE and tells it what to do, all
that's been limited is what you can tell IE to do (the header trick).

But like I said before, you probably consider that a feature not an exploit.

Geo.

"Rich"  wrote in message news:3e302eae{at}w3.nls.net...
   They may just be wrong and not lying.  They haven't had the clear and
unambiguous information you have had before you continued repeating your
lies many times.

Rich

  "Geo."  wrote in message
news:3e2fcea0$2{at}w3.nls.net...
  I guess all the websites I posted links to are lying too since they all
call
  it a media player exploit, huh?

  Geo.

  "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e2f7336{at}w3.nls.net...
     Just keep lying George.  It's very obvious when you look at the other
  messages you are posting at the same time as these where you lie about WMP
  executing script.  You look like a fool.

  Rich

    "Geo."  wrote in message
news:3e2f5ea5$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    I meant what I wrote, you can redefine "code" to anything you
like in an
    attempt to end run the actual realities of the situation.

    Geo.

    "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e2f5456{at}w3.nls.net...
       No, you wrote execute code this time.  You clearly don't mean that in
  the
    literal sense since with x86 code running the machine sits there doing
    nothing.  As you had made many false claims regarding WMP running script
  in
    the last I assumed, maybe incorrectly, that you were repeated your old
  false
    claims.  Do you have new false claims or do you want to broaden your
silly
    claim to everything making use of the instruction execution mechanism of
  the
    CPU while this is going on is a vulnerable component?

    Rich

      "Geo."  wrote in message
news:3e2f3a88{at}w3.nls.net...
      did I say script in my post?

      Geo.

      "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e2eca1f{at}w3.nls.net...
         Their you go with lies again.  There is no script being run by WMP.
    All
      the script in these examples is in web pages that are opened in IE.

      Rich

        "Geo."  wrote in message
news:3e2e7cbc{at}w3.nls.net...
        I beg to differ, since WMP is being used to execute code that the
  hacker
        wrote, by definition there is an exploit in WMP. You of course are
  free
    to
        call it a feature if you like.

        Geo.

        "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e2e16e9{at}w3.nls.net...
           Obviously you do not understand.  There is no exploit in WMP in
    either
        case.  Maybe you want to argue that the HTTP protocol is still
  unpatched
        because all exploits in all browsers involving a web site require
HTTP
    and
        when HTTP is disabled none of these exploits work.

        Rich

          "Geo."  wrote in message
    news:3e2df83a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
          I understand what you are saying but the wimpy exploit is not
  patched
    is
        it?
          What was patched was stage 2 of the hack (and maybe stage 3). The
    media
          player exploit that's used to kick it off is still functional even
    after
        you
          patch IE.

          Geo.

          "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e2ccb3f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
             I know exactly which report it was to which you referred.  You
      included
        a
          copy earlier.  Note that this one references the earlier whimpy
    report.
        The
          two are distinct reports.  Look at the dates.  They are a year
  apart.
        Also,
          the report to which you refer starts out with a clear statement
that
    it
      is
          just another scenario trying to exploit problems reported earlier.
      While
          both try to implicate WMP the only connection to WMP is that it is
    used
      as
          one step in a complex sequence.  Also true of both cases is that
IE
  is
      the
          significant component.  It's not just that IE was patched, but the
  the
        root
          of the vulnerability is with IE which is what it was changed.
It's
    not
        with
          everything that is used in the complex scenario.  If you follow
that
        logic,
          all these are vulnerabilities in the HTTP protocol because the
HTTP
        protocol
          is used in all of these and if you disable the HTTP protocol
system
    wide
          then the vulnerabilities disappear.  That is the logic you tried
      earlier,
          albeit incorrectly, with scripting.  It simply does not satisfy
the
      rules
        of
          logic.

          Rich

            "Geo."  wrote in message
      news:3e2c9cbd$1{at}w3.nls.net...
            Rich,

            I value your knowledge about IE, but I don't see us agreeing on
    this.
        Here
            is a link to the original writeup

            http://lists.insecure.org/lists/bugtraq/2002/Aug/0316.html

            In that link just before step one he says it's a combination of
      several
            exploits the one that's used to kick it off is the wimpy exploit
  of
        media
            player, he even links to it in his post
        http://www.malware.com/wimpy.html
          so
            we have the exploit author, the guy who discovered wimpy and me
    saying
          it's
            a media player exploit and you and MS saying it's an IE exploit.
    What
          makes
            his hack unique is the way in which he uses wimpy to control IE
          components.

            I think the difference in our viewpoints is because you are
coming
    at
      it
            from the patch side and I'm coming at it from the hack side. You
  see
      it
        as
            being patched from IE, I see it as being exploited from Media
    player.

            Geo.

            "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e2c354a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
               Actually, it's an IE issue.  There was one IE issue which
these
      folks
            reported several distinct paths to the same issue as if they are
        different
            issues.  In any case, if you go back and read this thread you
  posted
    a
            different issue.  Try to read your own posts.  In any event,
both
    are
      IE
            issues.

            Rich

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