From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C2C2C9.5A14C1C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   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.
  >>
  >>
  >

------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C2C2C9.5A14C1C0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   No
diversion.  You =
must be=20
projecting your own behavior.  I'm pointing out that all of these
= are just=20
as responsible as WMP and like WMP not the source of the=20
vulnerability.
 
   George
and maybe others =
here are using=20
the flawed logic that any component of a complex process can be claimed = to be=20
the vulnerable step.  He tried to justify it by claiming that if he =

disables the component he selected without changing anything else the = process=20
can not complete.  This is also true of all the examples I =
provided. =20
What George ignored though it was pointed out to him many times is that = if the=20
IE update to which I referred him many times also is applied, nothing = else is=20
changed, and nothing is disabled, the process can not complete.  =
This is=20
because the vulnerability does not reside in any of the other components = from=20
the power supply to WMP but in the one thing that changed stops this=20
process.
 
Rich
 

  "John Cuccia" <jcuccia{at}bigfoot.com>">mailto:jcuccia{at}bigfoot.com">jcuccia{at}bigfoot.com>
wrote =
in message=20
  news:r3a03vsmr5n=
4auepe86empsd0n2jjt6nvq{at}4ax.com...Anything=20
  for a diversion.On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:33:01 -0600,
"Randy=20
  H"<randy_holcomb{at}attglobal.netmailto:randy_holcomb{at}attglobal.net">randy_holcomb{at}attglobal.net
A>>=20
  wrote:>It's more like a totally correct, but totally =
useless=20
  reposne.>>"John Cuccia"
<jcuccia{at}bigfoot.com>">mailto:jcuccia{at}bigfoot.com">jcuccia{at}bigfoot.com>
wrote =
in=20
  =
message>news:6bot2vs6h2r42r5u1sm4odpkqke4hid9ai{at}4ax.com...>=
>=20
  Doesn't spinning like that make you
dizzy?>>>> On =
Wed, 22=20
  Jan 2003 09:15:29 -0800, "Rich" <{at}> =
wrote:>>>>=20
  >   The user.  The HTTP protocol.  The =
electricity that=20
  powers the>computer.  The warmth of the
sun.  And =
more. =20
  Remove any one of these from>the complex scenario and nothing=20
  happens.  Like WMP none of these are the>source of the=20
  =
vulnerability.>>>>>

------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C2C2C9.5A14C1C0--

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