From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_01D5_01C5D235.6F36D010
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   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_01D5_01C5D235.6F36D010
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   They use
the term broadly =
and apply it=20
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=20
  in 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 time =
they=20
    want".  
     
       I'm
saying that even =
according to=20
    eeye Windows XP SP2 and Windows Server 2003 SP1 are not vulnerable =
to the=20
    two remote exploits they reported.  This overlooks that a =
firewall will=20
    make even older versions immune.  Your bullshit claim regarding =
"95% of=20
    the world's computers" is just more of your typical =
nonsense.
     
       Why
can't you be =
mature and honest=20
    enough to admit you were wrong?
     
    Rich
     
    

      "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>=20">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>=20
      wrote in message news:435108b3{at}w3.nls.net...
      I was the one who made the =
statement and it=20
      was "pretty much any windows box connected to the internet". Are =
you now=20
      trying to tell us that XPsp2 and S03 don't require any of the =
october=20
      critical patches? As for pull vs push, I can push you a pdf file =
to pull=20
      and that makes it a push issue in my book, the fact that you =
think=20
      only 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 =
assume=20
        Windows XP SP2 or Windows Server 2003 SP1.  According to =
eeye, both=20
        are immune to the remote push attacks.  The remote pull =
attacks=20
        eeye reported are apply to an older release of Windows Media =
Player and=20
        to an older COM component that a tiny fraction of people would =
have=20
        installed.  They don't help your claim at all because eeye =
can't=20
        compel people to visit a web page they own with the =
appropriate=20
        level of access or download and open a file they supply.  =
And again=20
        none affect me or my family.
         
          
First, folks don't =
have to=20
        visit Windows Update.  Updates can be and often are =
installed=20
        automatically.  Even without this, you are nowhere close to =
"95% of=20
        the worlds computers".
         
        Rich
         
        

          "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote =
in message=20
          news:43502caa{at}w3.nls.net...
          George's claim was that the =
exploits=20
          would allow pretty much any windows box on the internet to be =
rooted=20
          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=20
          gives you.
           
          anyone can go to windows =
update and see=20
          if they require the patches, how many folks here do you think =
will=20
          find that they do?
           
          Geo.
          

            "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:434fded9{at}w3.nls.net...
               George's false =
claim was=20
            in regard to eeye's reported claims.  I don't have a =
vulnerable=20
            copy of that installed anywhere and only one or two of =
my=20
            machines have any copy.
             
               The simple =
point is that=20
            George was wrong.  He'd look less a 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 =
installed.=20
                 But what about the
subject of the =
advisory=20
              MSDDS.DLL?  But I see that itonly concerns old =
versions=20
              of this DLL that almost no one would be=20
          =
running.

------=_NextPart_000_01D5_01C5D235.6F36D010--

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