From: "Geo" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_03E3_01C5D2A4.3AEDCE20
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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_03E3_01C5D2A4.3AEDCE20
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








You're impossible. Even if I have 4 =
"critical"=20
remote code possible exploits you still claim it's not possible. There = are more=20
coming and no doubt you will continue to claim it's not =
possible.
 
So your only proof that you
will accept =
is now a=20
worm that infects every windows box on earth? Is that what it takes to = convince=20
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 = Marc=20
where you work and what you think and that you would like to see if eeye = can=20
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 that=20
  95% of the worlds computers will be infected by this or is this just =
another=20
  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 and=20
      apply it to scenarios that require the interaction of an =
administrator=20
      user.
       
      Rich
       
      

        "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>=20">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>=20
        wrote 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=20
          they want".  
           
            
I'm saying that =
even=20
          according to eeye Windows XP SP2 and Windows Server 2003 SP1 =
are not=20
          vulnerable to the two remote exploits they reported.  =
This=20
          overlooks that a firewall will make even older versions =
immune. =20
          Your bullshit claim regarding "95% of the world's computers" =
is just=20
          more of your typical nonsense.
           
            
Why can't you be =
mature and=20
          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 =
statement=20
            and it was "pretty much any windows box connected to the =
internet".=20
            Are you now trying to tell us that XPsp2 and S03 don't =
require any=20
            of the october critical patches? As for pull vs push, I can =
push you=20
            a pdf file to pull and that makes it a push issue in my =
book,=20
            the fact that you think only one exploit at a time should be =
used=20
            speaks volumes about your 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.  =
According=20
              to eeye, both are immune to the remote push attacks.  =
The=20
              remote pull attacks eeye reported are apply to an older =
release of=20
              Windows Media Player and to an older COM component that a =
tiny=20
              fraction of people would have installed.  They don't =
help=20
              your claim at all because eeye can't compel people to =
visit a web=20
              page they own with the appropriate level of access or =

              download and open a file they supply.  And again none =
affect=20
              me or my family.
               
                 First, folks =
don't have=20
              to visit Windows Update.  Updates can be and often =
are=20
              installed automatically.  Even without this, you are =
nowhere=20
              close to "95% of the worlds
computers".
               
              Rich
               
              

                "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
=
wrote in=20
                message news:43502caa{at}w3.nls.net...
                George's claim
was that =
the=20
                exploits would allow pretty much any windows box on the =
internet=20
                to be rooted by eeye, you are the one trying to limit =
this to=20
                your specific computer where you run mostly just the =
newest=20
                versions of whatever MS gives you.
                 
                anyone can go to =
windows update and=20
                see if they require the patches, how many folks here do =
you=20
                think will find that they do?
                 
                Geo.
                

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

------=_NextPart_000_03E3_01C5D2A4.3AEDCE20--

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