From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_02D0_01C5D361.38674E70
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   I'm not selling anything.  If I was I'm sure you could point me to =
some sales pitch, hopefully equivalent to the irresponsible behavior of = your idols.

   What I am doing is pointing out that not only is your 95% of the =
world's computers claim false and rediculously so, you are neither = honest
nor mature enough to admit you are wrong.

Rich

  "Geo"  wrote in message
news:43545dc9{at}w3.nls.net...
  You're selling microsoft security, as long as nobody is publishing =
unpached exploits you claim windows is secure. It's not.

  Geo.
    "Rich"  wrote in message news:4353cd95{at}w3.nls.net...
       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_02D0_01C5D361.38674E70
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   I'm not selling =
anything.  If I=20
was I'm sure you could point me to some sales pitch, hopefully = equivalent to the=20
irresponsible behavior of your idols.
 
   What I am
doing is =
pointing out that=20
not only is your 95% of the world's computers claim false and = rediculously so,=20
you are neither honest nor mature enough to admit you are =
wrong.
Rich
 

  "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  in message news:43545dc9{at}w3.nls.net...
  You're selling microsoft
security, as =
long as=20
  nobody is publishing unpached exploits you claim windows is secure. =
It's=20
  not.
   
  Geo.
  

    "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:4353cd95{at}w3.nls.net...
      
Bullshit.  Your =
idol worship=20
    is so strong as to blind you to the obvious.  As for your =
saleman=20
    reference, I'm not selling anything, eeye is.  I don't put out =
press=20
    releases or call reporters with claims of how wonderful I am and my =
products=20
    are.  eeye does.  They don't wait at all on their =
PR.  As you=20
    point out that they try to take a second bite from the apple with =
more PR=20
    when an update is released.  Lots of sales and PR effort at the =
expense=20
    of the public and 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=20
    only false, it's laughable.
     
    Rich
     
    

      "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>=20">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>=20
      wrote 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 exist until those patches are released. This is exactly =
why I=20
      believe full disclosure is required, to keep salesmen like =
you from=20
      pulling the sheep over peoples eyes.
       
      Geo.
      

        "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:43531be9{at}w3.nls.net...
          
Are you ever going =
to be=20
        mature and honest enough to admit your 95% claim is false.  =
It's=20
        not only false, it's laughable.
         
          
As for your =
continued attempts=20
        to create a diversion, even with your idol worship of the =
irresponsible=20
        folks at eeye there is no need for help from me or even =
you.  There=20
        are millions of Internet facing web servers running Windows =
Server 2003=20
        and IIS 6.0 and the eeye folks have their own copies.  If =
your idol=20
        knew of a way to exploit these you should have no doubt that =
everything=20
        else he would be issuing press releases, calling the press, and =
posting=20
        claims prominently on his web site.
         
        Rich
         
        

          "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote =
in message=20
          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=20
          claim it's not possible.
           
          So your only proof that you =
will accept=20
          is now a worm that infects every windows box on earth? Is that =
what it=20
          takes to convince you? 
           
          Hey, I've got a thought, how =
about you=20
          take server03 and setup a web server that's internet =
accessible and=20
          I'll tell Marc where you work and what you think and that you =
would=20
          like to see if eeye can hack the server, would you believe =
your=20
          eyes?
           
          Geo.
           
          "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:4352c454{at}w3.nls.net...
          

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

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

                "Rich" <{at}> wrote in
message news:43528201{at}w3.nls.net...
                   They use =
the term=20
                broadly and apply it to scenarios that require the =
interaction=20
                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,=20
                  not 2.
                   
                  Geo.
                  

                    "Rich" <{at}> wrote in
message news:43513148{at}w3.nls.net...
                       =
No.  In =20
                    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=20
                    any time they want".  
                     
                       I'm =
saying that=20
                    even according to eeye Windows XP SP2 and Windows =
Server=20
                    2003 SP1 are not vulnerable to the two remote =
exploits they=20
                    reported.  This overlooks that a firewall will =
make=20
                    even older versions immune.  Your bullshit =
claim=20
                    regarding "95% of the world's computers" is just =
more of=20
                    your typical nonsense.
                     
                       Why =
can't you be=20
                    mature and honest enough to admit you were=20
                    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=20
                      statement and it was "pretty much any windows box=20
                      connected to the internet". Are you now trying to =
tell us=20
                      that XPsp2 and S03 don't require any of the =
october=20
                      critical patches? As for pull vs push, I can push =
you a=20
                      pdf file to pull and that makes it a push =
issue in my=20
                      book, the fact that you think only one exploit at =
a time=20
                      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=20
                        said assume Windows XP SP2 or Windows Server =
2003=20
                        SP1.  According to eeye, both are immune to =
the=20
                        remote push attacks.  The remote pull =
attacks eeye=20
                        reported are apply to an older release of =
Windows Media=20
                        Player and to an older COM component that a tiny =

                        fraction of people would have installed.  =
They=20
                        don't help your claim at all because eeye can't =
compel=20
                        people to visit a web page they own with =
the=20
                        appropriate level of access or download and open =
a file=20
                        they supply.  And again none affect me or =
my=20
                        family.
                         
                           =
First, folks=20
                        don't have to visit Windows Update.  =
Updates can be=20
                        and often are installed automatically.  =
Even=20
                        without this, you are nowhere close to "95% of =
the=20
                        worlds 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=20
                          the exploits would allow pretty much any =
windows box=20
                          on the internet to be rooted by eeye, you are =
the one=20
                          trying to limit this to your specific computer =
where=20
                          you run mostly just the newest versions of =
whatever MS=20
                          gives you.
                           
                          anyone can go =
to windows=20
                          update and see if they require the patches, =
how many=20
                          folks here do you think will find that they=20
                          do?
                           
                          Geo.
                          

                            "Rich" <{at}>
wrote in message news:434fded9{at}w3.nls.net...
                               George's=20
                            false claim was in regard to eeye's reported =

                            claims.  I 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=20
                            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=20
                              MDT2DD.DLL installed.
   =
But=20
                              what about the subject of the advisory=20
                              MSDDS.DLL?  But I see that itonly =

                              concerns old versions of this DLL that =
almost no=20
                              one would be=20
                        =
running.

------=_NextPart_000_02D0_01C5D361.38674E70--

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