From: "Geo" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0070_01C5D369.FF30C420
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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_0070_01C5D369.FF30C420
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








You're selling microsoft security, as =
long as=20
nobody is publishing unpached exploits you claim windows is secure. It's =

not.
 
Geo.

  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:4353cd95{at}w3.nls.net...
    
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=20
  call reporters with claims of how wonderful I am and my products =
are. =20
  eeye does.  They don't wait at all on their PR.  As you =
point out=20
  that they try to take a second bite from the apple with more PR when =
an update=20
  is released.  Lots of sales and PR effort at the expense of the =
public=20
  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 only=20
  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=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=20
    sheep 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=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>=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=20
        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=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=20
          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 for=20
            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 of=20
              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 even=20
                  according to eeye Windows XP SP2 and Windows Server =
2003 SP1=20
                  are not vulnerable to the two remote exploits they=20
                  reported.  This overlooks that a firewall will =
make even=20
                  older versions immune.  Your bullshit claim =
regarding=20
                  "95% of the world's computers" is just more of your =
typical=20
                  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=20
                    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 =
connected=20
                    to the internet". Are you now trying to tell us that =
XPsp2=20
                    and S03 don't require any of the october critical =
patches?=20
                    As for pull vs push, I can push you a pdf file to =
pull and=20
                    that makes it a push issue in my book, the fact =
that=20
                    you think only one exploit at a time should be used =
speaks=20
                    volumes about your hacking 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=20
                      of people would have installed.  They don't =
help your=20
                      claim at all because eeye can't compel people to =
visit a=20
                      web page they own with the appropriate level =
of=20
                      access or download and open a file they =
supply.  And=20
                      again none affect me or my family.
                       
                         =
First, folks=20
                      don't have to visit Windows Update.  Updates =
can be=20
                      and often are installed automatically.  Even =
without=20
                      this, you 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=20
                        mostly 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=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=20
                          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 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=20
                            MDT2DD.DLL installed.
   =
But what=20
                            about the subject of the advisory =
MSDDS.DLL? =20
                            But I see that itonly concerns old =
versions of=20
                            this DLL that almost no one would be=20
                          =
running.

------=_NextPart_000_0070_01C5D369.FF30C420--

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