From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0218_01C5D25D.19D3A760
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    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_0218_01C5D25D.19D3A760
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








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

  "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  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 according=20
        to eeye Windows XP SP2 and Windows Server 2003 SP1 are not =
vulnerable to=20
        the two remote exploits they reported.  This overlooks that =
a=20
        firewall will make even older versions immune.  Your =
bullshit claim=20
        regarding "95% of the world's computers" is just more of your =
typical=20
        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 message=20
          news:435108b3{at}w3.nls.net...
          I was the one who made the =
statement and=20
          it was "pretty much any windows box connected to the =
internet". Are=20
          you now trying to tell us that XPsp2 and S03 don't require any =
of the=20
          october critical patches? As for pull vs push, I can push you =
a pdf=20
          file to pull and that makes it a push issue in my book, =
the fact=20
          that 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 =
said assume=20
            Windows XP SP2 or Windows Server 2003 SP1.  According =
to eeye,=20
            both are immune to the remote push attacks.  The remote =
pull=20
            attacks eeye reported are apply to an older release of =
Windows Media=20
            Player and to an older COM component that a tiny fraction of =
people=20
            would have installed.  They don't help your claim at =
all=20
            because eeye can't compel people to visit a web =
page they own=20
            with the appropriate level of access or download and open a =
file=20
            they supply.  And again none affect me or my=20
            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=20
            "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 exploits=20
              would allow pretty much any windows box on the internet to =
be=20
              rooted by eeye, you are the one trying to limit this to =
your=20
              specific computer where you run mostly just the newest =
versions of=20
              whatever MS gives you.
               
              anyone can go to windows =
update and=20
              see if they require the patches, how many folks here do =
you think=20
              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 or=20
                two of my machines have any copy.
                 
                   The simple =
point is=20
                that 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.    But
what about the =
subject of=20
                  the advisory MSDDS.DLL?  But I see that =
itonly=20
                  concerns old versions of this DLL that almost no one =
would be=20
                  =
running.

------=_NextPart_000_0218_01C5D25D.19D3A760--

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