TIP: Click on subject to list as thread!

ANSI

echo:	nthelp
to:	Geo
from:	Rich
date:	2005-10-17 09:15:00
subject:	Re: Revisiting george`s false claims
From: "Rich" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_02A3_01C5D2FB.407E9930 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bullshit. Your idol worship is so strong as to blind you to the = obvious. As for your saleman reference, I'm not selling anything, eeye = is. I don't put out press releases or call reporters with claims of how = wonderful I am and my products are. eeye does. They don't wait at all = on their PR. As you point out that they try to take a second bite from = the apple with more PR when an update is released. Lots of sales and PR = effort at the expense of the public and their own customers. Now, 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. Rich "Geo" wrote in message news:43537d0c{at}w3.nls.net... only after the patches are released does eeye release the details. = Course that doesn't stop you from denying the exploits exist until those = patches are released. This is exactly why I believe full disclosure is = required, to keep salesmen like you from pulling the sheep over peoples = eyes. Geo. "Rich" wrote in message news:43531be9{at}w3.nls.net... 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_02A3_01C5D2FB.407E9930 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bullshit. Your idol = worship is=20 so strong as to blind you to the obvious. As for your saleman = reference,=20 I'm not selling anything, eeye is. I don't put out press releases = or call=20 reporters with claims of how wonderful I am and my products are. = eeye=20 does. They don't wait at all on their PR. As you point out = that they=20 try to take a second bite from the apple with more PR when an update is=20 released. Lots of sales and PR effort at the expense of the public = and=20 their own customers. Now, are you ever = going to be=20 mature and honest enough to admit your 95% claim is false. It's = not only=20 false, it's laughable. Rich "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net> wrote=20 in message news:43537d0c{at}w3.nls.net... only after the patches are released = does eeye=20 release the details. Course that doesn't stop you from denying the = exploits=20 exist until those patches are released. This is exactly why I believe = full=20 disclosure is required, to keep salesmen like you from pulling = the sheep=20 over peoples eyes. Geo. "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:43531be9{at}w3.nls.net... Are you ever going to = be mature=20 and honest enough to admit your 95% claim is false. It's not = only=20 false, it's laughable. As for your continued = attempts to=20 create a diversion, even with your idol worship of the irresponsible = folks=20 at eeye there is no need for help from me or even you. There = are=20 millions of Internet facing web servers running Windows Server 2003 = and IIS=20 6.0 and the eeye folks have their own copies. If your idol = knew of a=20 way to exploit these you should have no doubt that everything else = he would=20 be issuing press releases, calling the press, and posting claims = prominently=20 on his web site. Rich "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>=20">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>=20 wrote in message news:43531276{at}w3.nls.net... You're impossible. Even if I have = 4=20 "critical" remote code possible exploits you still claim it's not=20 possible. There are more coming and no doubt you will continue to = claim=20 it's not possible. So your only proof that you will = accept is=20 now a worm that infects every windows box on earth? Is that what = it takes=20 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=20 Marc where you work and what you think and that you would like to = see if=20 eeye can 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=20 that 95% of the worlds computers will be infected by this or is = this=20 just another attempt of yours to distract attention from your = false and=20 bogus claims? Rich "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net> wrote = in message=20 news:4352a8e4{at}w3.nls.net... FINE, = we'll wait for=20 the worm. Geo. "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:43528201{at}w3.nls.net... They use the = term broadly=20 and apply it to scenarios that require the interaction of an = administrator user. Rich "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net> = wrote in=20 message 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=20 time they want". I'm saying = that even=20 according to eeye Windows XP SP2 and Windows Server 2003 = SP1 are=20 not vulnerable to the two remote exploits they = reported. =20 This 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=20 mature 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=20 statement and it was "pretty much any windows box = connected to=20 the internet". Are you now trying to tell us that = XPsp2 and=20 S03 don't require any of the october critical patches? = As for=20 pull vs push, I can push you a pdf file to pull and = that makes=20 it a push issue in my book, the fact that you = think only=20 one exploit at a time should be used speaks volumes = about your=20 hacking 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=20 apply to an older release of Windows Media Player = and to an=20 older COM component that a tiny fraction of people = would=20 have installed. They don't help your claim at = all=20 because eeye can't compel people to visit a web=20 page they own with the appropriate level of = access or=20 download and open a file they supply. And = again none=20 affect me or my family. First, = folks don't=20 have to visit Windows Update. Updates can be = and often=20 are installed automatically. Even without = this, you=20 are nowhere close to "95% of the worlds=20 computers". Rich "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>=20">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>=20 wrote in 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=20 limit this to your specific computer where you run = mostly=20 just the newest versions of whatever MS gives=20 you. anyone can go to = windows=20 update and see if they require the patches, how = many folks=20 here do 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=20 don't have a vulnerable copy of that=20 installed anywhere and only one or two of = my=20 machines have any copy. = The simple=20 point is that George was wrong. He'd look = less a=20 fool if he 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=20 subject of the advisory MSDDS.DLL? But I = see=20 that itonly concerns old versions of this = DLL that=20 almost no one would be=20 = running. ------=_NextPart_000_02A3_01C5D2FB.407E9930-- --- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45) SEEN-BY: 633/267 270 5030/786 @PATH: 379/45 1 106/2000 633/267
SOURCE: echomail via fidonet.ozzmosis.com

Email questions or comments to sysop@ipingthereforeiam.com
All parts of this website painstakingly hand-crafted in the U.S.A.!
IPTIA BBS/MUD/Terminal/Game Server List, © 2025 IPTIA Consulting™.