From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_019E_01C5D16C.FAEDF8A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   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_019E_01C5D16C.FAEDF8A0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








  
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 to eeye=20
Windows XP SP2 and Windows Server 2003 SP1 are not vulnerable to the two = remote=20
exploits they reported.  This overlooks that a firewall will make = even=20
older versions 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 =
and honest=20
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 statement =
and it was=20
  "pretty much any windows box connected to the internet". Are you now =
trying to=20
  tell us that XPsp2 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 that makes =
it a=20
  push issue in my book, the fact that you think only one exploit =
at a time=20
  should be used speaks volumes about your hacking =
mentality.
   
  Geo.
  

    "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:43504d74{at}w3.nls.net...
       At
the time I said =
assume Windows=20
    XP SP2 or Windows Server 2003 SP1.  According to eeye, both are =
immune=20
    to the remote push attacks.  The remote pull attacks eeye =
reported are=20
    apply to an older release of Windows Media Player and to an older =
COM=20
    component that a tiny fraction of people would have installed.  =
They=20
    don't help 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=20
    a file they supply.  And again none affect me or my=20
family.
     
      
First, folks don't =
have to visit=20
    Windows Update.  Updates can be and often are installed=20
    automatically.  Even without this, you are nowhere close to =
"95% of the=20
    worlds 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 =
exploits would=20
      allow pretty much any windows box on the internet to be rooted by =
eeye,=20
      you are the one trying to limit this to your specific computer =
where you=20
      run mostly just the newest versions of whatever MS gives =
you.
       
      anyone can go to windows update =
and see if=20
      they require the patches, how many folks here do you think will =
find that=20
      they do?
       
      Geo.
      

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

------=_NextPart_000_019E_01C5D16C.FAEDF8A0--

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