From: "Geo" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0227_01C5D265.201BA660
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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_0227_01C5D265.201BA660
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








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 apply=20
  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 they=20
      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 =

      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>=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 =
statement and it=20
        was "pretty much any windows box connected to the internet". Are =
you now=20
        trying to tell us that XPsp2 and S03 don't require any of the =
october=20
        critical patches? As for pull vs push, I can push you a pdf file =
to pull=20
        and that makes it a push issue in my book, the fact that =
you think=20
        only one 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 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 =
because=20
          eeye can't compel people to visit a web page they own =
with the=20
          appropriate level of access or download and open a file they=20
          supply.  And again none affect me or my =
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 "95%=20
          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 rooted=20
            by eeye, you are the one trying to limit this to your =
specific=20
            computer where you run mostly just the newest versions of =
whatever=20
            MS gives you.
             
            anyone can go to windows =
update and see=20
            if they require the patches, how many folks here do you =
think will=20
            find that they do?
             
            Geo.
            

              "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:434fded9{at}w3.nls.net...
                 George's =
false claim was=20
              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 that=20
              George was wrong.  He'd look less a fool if he =
admitted=20
              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 of=20
                the advisory MSDDS.DLL?  But I see that itonly =
concerns=20
                old versions of this DLL that almost no one would be=20
              =
running.

------=_NextPart_000_0227_01C5D265.201BA660--

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