From: "Geo." 

the script is in the asf file, media player is associated with asf files
and that's what I view as running the script. I never used the phrase
"executing script" as I don't care what piece of code does the
actual execution of the script (be it media player or a system script
interpreter module or IE or whatever dll happens to do the actual work)
because it's media player that is setting off the script.

Geo.

"Rich"  wrote in message news:3e2f72f3{at}w3.nls.net...
   No.  Are you going to continue lying?  If you admit this now we may be
able to save time.

   I also want to point out that while in one message you lie that you never
claimed WMP is executing script, having used the word code in the
immediately preceeding message, you posted this one with the lie that WMP
is executing script.

Rich

  "Geo."  wrote in message
news:3e2f5de3$3{at}w3.nls.net...
  It is part of the asf file that media player loads after finding a pointer
  to it in the asx file.

  Geo.

  "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e2f54b9{at}w3.nls.net...
     More lies.  This is in an HTML file that WMP never sees.  It's loaded
by
  IE in the scenario described in the original report.

     Why don't you even bother to read the stuff you post?

  Rich

    "Geo."  wrote in message
news:3e2f3b49$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    This section in the asf file that WMP reads:

    
     
    function malware(){
   
alert("malware");location=("file://C%3A%5CMy%20Documents%5CMy%20Music%
    5CVirtual%20Albums%5Cmalware%5Cf ck.asx%20.")
     }
      


    Geo.

    "Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
    news:3e2ecc9b{at}w3.nls.net...
    What is causing the pages to load in IE so the script can be ran ?

    Bob Lewis

      "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