From: "Geo" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00D4_01C5D2E4.4439C3E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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_00D4_01C5D2E4.4439C3E0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








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 and=20
  honest enough to admit your 95% claim is false.  It's not only =
false,=20
  it's 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=20
  of Internet facing web servers running Windows Server 2003 and IIS 6.0 =
and the=20
  eeye folks have their own copies.  If your idol knew of a way to =
exploit=20
  these 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 =

  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 =
"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=20
    a worm that infects every windows box on earth? Is that what it =
takes to=20
    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 just=20
      another 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=20
          and apply it to scenarios that require the interaction of an=20
          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 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=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 S03=20
                don't require any of the october critical patches? As =
for pull=20
                vs push, I can push you a pdf file to pull and that =
makes it a=20
                push issue in my book, the fact that you think only =
one=20
                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 apply=20
                  to an older release of Windows Media Player and to an =
older=20
                  COM component that a tiny fraction of people would =
have=20
                  installed.  They don't help your claim at all =
because=20
                  eeye can't compel people to visit a web page they =
own=20
                  with the appropriate level of access or download and =
open a=20
                  file they supply.  And again none 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 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=20
                    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 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=20
                      don't have a vulnerable copy of that=20
                      installed anywhere and only one or two of my =
machines=20
                      have any copy.
                       
                         The =
simple point=20
                      is that George was wrong.  He'd look less a =
fool if=20
                      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 that=20
                        itonly concerns old versions of this DLL =
that almost=20
                        no one would be=20
                  =
running.

------=_NextPart_000_00D4_01C5D2E4.4439C3E0--

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