From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_024C_01C5D291.59F2EA70
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Are you ever going to be mature and honest enough to admit your 95% =
claim is false.  It's not only false, it's laughable.

   As for your continued attempts to create a diversion, even with your =
idol worship of the irresponsible folks at eeye there is no need for = help
from me or even you.  There are millions of Internet facing web = servers
running Windows Server 2003 and IIS 6.0 and the eeye folks have = their own
copies.  If your idol knew of a way to exploit these you = should have no
doubt that everything else he would be issuing press = releases, calling
the press, and posting claims prominently on his web = site.

Rich

  "Geo"  wrote in message
news:43531276{at}w3.nls.net...
  You're impossible. Even if I have 4 "critical" remote code possible =
exploits you still claim it's not possible. There are more coming and no =
doubt you will continue to claim it's not possible.

  So your only proof that you will accept is now a worm that infects =
every windows box on earth? Is that what it takes to convince you?=20

  Hey, I've got a thought, how about you take server03 and setup a web =
server that's internet accessible and I'll tell Marc where you work and =
what you think and that you would like to see if eeye can hack the =
server, would you believe your eyes?

  Geo.

  "Rich"  wrote in message news:4352c454{at}w3.nls.net...
        Are you going to claim that 95% of the worlds computers will be =
infected by this or is this just another attempt of yours to distract =
attention from your false and bogus claims?

    Rich

      "Geo"  wrote in message =
news:4352a8e4{at}w3.nls.net...
      FINE,     we'll wait for the worm.

      Geo.
        "Rich"  wrote in message news:43528201{at}w3.nls.net...
           They use the term broadly and apply it to scenarios that =
require the interaction of an administrator user.

        Rich

          "Geo"  wrote in message =
news:435277e8{at}w3.nls.net...
          They reported 4 remote exploits, not 2.

          Geo.
            "Rich"  wrote in message news:43513148{at}w3.nls.net...
               No.  In  news://news.barkto.com/42d308d2$1{at}w3.nls.net you =
wrote "eeye could wipe out 95% of the world's computers any time they
= want". =20

               I'm saying that even according to eeye Windows XP SP2 and =
Windows Server 2003 SP1 are not vulnerable to the two remote exploits =
they reported.  This overlooks that a firewall will make even older =
versions immune.  Your bullshit claim regarding "95% of the world's =
computers" is just more of your typical nonsense.

               Why can't you be mature and honest enough to admit you =
were wrong?

            Rich

              "Geo"  wrote in message =
news:435108b3{at}w3.nls.net...
              I was the one who made the statement and it was "pretty =
much any windows box connected to the internet". Are you now trying to
= tell us that XPsp2 and S03 don't require any of the october critical =
patches? As for pull vs push, I can push you a pdf file to pull and that =
makes it a push issue in my book, the fact that you think only one =
exploit at a time should be used speaks volumes about your hacking =
mentality.

              Geo.
                "Rich"  wrote in message
news:43504d74{at}w3.nls.net...
                   At the time I said assume Windows XP SP2 or Windows =
Server 2003 SP1.  According to eeye, both are immune to the remote push =
attacks.  The remote pull attacks eeye reported are apply to an older =
release of Windows Media Player and to an older COM component that a = tiny
fraction of people would have installed.  They don't help your = claim at
all because eeye can't compel people to visit a web page they = own with
the appropriate level of access or download and open a file = they supply. 
And again none affect me or my family.

                   First, folks don't have to visit Windows Update.  =
Updates can be and often are installed automatically.  Even without = this,
you are nowhere close to "95% of the worlds computers".

                Rich

                  "Geo"  wrote in message =
news:43502caa{at}w3.nls.net...
                  George's claim was that the exploits would allow =
pretty much any windows box on the internet to be rooted by eeye, you = are
the one trying to limit this to your specific computer where you run =
mostly just the newest versions of whatever MS gives you.

                  anyone can go to windows update and see if they =
require the patches, how many folks here do you think will find that = they do?

                  Geo.
                    "Rich"  wrote in message =
news:434fded9{at}w3.nls.net...
                       George's false claim was in regard to eeye's =
reported claims.  I don't have a vulnerable copy of that installed =
anywhere and only one or two of my machines have any copy.

                       The simple point is that George was wrong.  He'd =
look less a fool if he admitted it.

                    Rich

                      "Mike N." 
wrote in message =
news:oc3vk1997vntoam2oqlc14e837ejsvu3u6{at}4ax.com...
                      On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:19:50 -0700, "Rich"
 =
wrote:

                      >   I don't have MDT2DD.DLL installed.=20

                         But what about the subject of the advisory =
MSDDS.DLL?  But I see that it
                      only concerns old versions of this DLL that almost =
no one would be running.

------=_NextPart_000_024C_01C5D291.59F2EA70
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Are you
ever going to be =
mature and=20
honest enough to admit your 95% claim is false.  It's not only =
false, it's=20
laughable.
 
   As for
your continued =
attempts to=20
create a diversion, even with your idol worship of the irresponsible = folks at=20
eeye there is no need for help from me or even you.  There are =
millions of=20
Internet facing web servers running Windows Server 2003 and IIS 6.0 and = the eeye=20
folks have their own copies.  If your idol knew of a way to
exploit = these=20
you should have no doubt that everything else he would be issuing press=20
releases, calling the press, and posting claims prominently on his web=20
site.
 
Rich
 

  "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  in message news:43531276{at}w3.nls.net...
  You're impossible. Even if I have 4 =
"critical"=20
  remote code possible exploits you still claim it's not possible. There =
are=20
  more coming and no doubt you will continue to claim it's not=20
  possible.
   
  So your only proof that you will =
accept is now a=20
  worm that infects every windows box on earth? Is that what it takes to =

  convince you? 
   
  Hey, I've got a thought, how about =
you take=20
  server03 and setup a web server that's internet accessible and I'll =
tell Marc=20
  where you work and what you think and that you would like to see if =
eeye can=20
  hack the server, would you believe your eyes?
   
  Geo.
   
  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:4352c454{at}w3.nls.net...
  

        Are you going to =
claim that=20
    95% of the worlds computers will be infected by this or is this just =
another=20
    attempt of yours to distract attention from your false and bogus=20
    claims?
     
    Rich
     
    

      "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>=20">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>=20
      wrote in message news:4352a8e4{at}w3.nls.net...
      FINE,
    we'll =
wait for the=20
      worm.
       
      Geo.
      

        "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:43528201{at}w3.nls.net...
          
They use the term =
broadly and=20
        apply it to scenarios that require the interaction of an =
administrator=20
        user.
         
        Rich
         
        

          "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote =
in message=20
          news:435277e8{at}w3.nls.net...
          They reported 4 remote =
exploits, not=20
          2.
           
          Geo.
          

            "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:43513148{at}w3.nls.net...
               No.  =
In  news://news.barkto.com/42d308d2$1{at}w3.nls.net">news://news.barkto.=
com/42d308d2$1{at}w3.nls.net=20
            you wrote "eeye could wipe out 95% of the world's computers =
any time=20
            they want".  
             
               I'm saying =
that even=20
            according to eeye Windows XP SP2 and Windows Server 2003 SP1 =
are not=20
            vulnerable to the two remote exploits they reported.  =
This=20
            overlooks that a firewall will make even older versions=20
            immune.  Your bullshit claim regarding "95% of the =
world's=20
            computers" is just more of your typical =
nonsense.
             
               Why can't you =
be mature=20
            and honest enough to admit you were wrong?
             
            Rich
             
            

              "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
=
wrote in=20
              message news:435108b3{at}w3.nls.net...
              I was the one who made =
the statement=20
              and it was "pretty much any windows box connected to the=20
              internet". Are you now trying to tell us that XPsp2 and =
S03 don't=20
              require any of the october critical patches? As for pull =
vs push,=20
              I can push you a pdf file to pull and that makes it a push =

              issue in my book, the fact that you think only one =
exploit at=20
              a time should be used speaks volumes about your hacking=20
              mentality.
               
              Geo.
              

                "Rich" <{at}> wrote in
message news:43504d74{at}w3.nls.net...
                   At the =
time I said=20
                assume Windows XP SP2 or Windows Server 2003 SP1. =20
                According to eeye, both are immune to the remote push=20
                attacks.  The remote pull attacks eeye reported are =
apply=20
                to an older release of Windows Media Player and to an =
older COM=20
                component that a tiny fraction of people would have=20
                installed.  They don't help your claim at all =
because eeye=20
                can't compel people to visit a web page they own =
with the=20
                appropriate level of access or download and open a file =
they=20
                supply.  And again none affect me or my=20
family.
                 
                   First, =
folks don't=20
                have to visit Windows Update.  Updates can be and =
often are=20
                installed automatically.  Even without this, you =
are=20
                nowhere close to "95% of the worlds =
computers".
                 
                Rich
                 
                

                  "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote in=20
                  message news:43502caa{at}w3.nls.net...
                  George's claim was =
that the=20
                  exploits would allow pretty much any windows box on =
the=20
                  internet to be rooted by eeye, you are the one trying =
to limit=20
                  this to your specific computer where you run mostly =
just the=20
                  newest versions of whatever MS gives you.
                   
                  anyone can go to =
windows update=20
                  and see if they require the patches, how many folks =
here do=20
                  you think will find that they do?
                   
                  Geo.
                  

                    "Rich" <{at}> wrote in
message news:434fded9{at}w3.nls.net...
                       =
George's false=20
                    claim was in regard to eeye's reported claims.  =
I don't=20
                    have a vulnerable copy of that =
installed anywhere and=20
                    only one or two of my machines have any =
copy.
                     
                       The =
simple point=20
                    is that George was wrong.  He'd look less a =
fool if he=20
                    admitted it.
                     
                    Rich
                     
                    
                      "Mike N." <mike{at}u-spam-u-die.net>=20">mailto:mike{at}u-spam-u-die.net">mike{at}u-spam-u-die.net>=20
                      wrote in message news:oc3vk1997vn=
toam2oqlc14e837ejsvu3u6{at}4ax.com...On=20
                      Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:19:50 -0700, "Rich"
<{at}>=20
                     
wrote:>   I don't have =
MDT2DD.DLL=20
                      installed.   
But what about the =
subject=20
                      of the advisory MSDDS.DLL?  But I see that =
itonly=20
                      concerns old versions of this DLL that almost no =
one would=20
                      be=20
            =
running.

------=_NextPart_000_024C_01C5D291.59F2EA70--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5