From: "Geo" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_012A_01C5D248.7024DEF0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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_012A_01C5D248.7024DEF0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








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 to=20
  eeye Windows XP SP2 and Windows Server 2003 SP1 are not vulnerable to =
the two=20
  remote exploits they reported.  This overlooks that a firewall =
will make=20
  even older versions immune.  Your bullshit claim regarding "95% =
of the=20
  world's 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>=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 was=20
    "pretty much any windows box connected to the internet". Are you now =
trying=20
    to tell us that XPsp2 and S03 don't require any of the october =
critical=20
    patches? As for pull vs push, I can push you a pdf file to pull and =
that=20
    makes it a push issue in my book, the fact that you think only =
one=20
    exploit at a time should be used speaks volumes about your hacking=20
    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, both=20
      are immune to the remote push attacks.  The remote pull =
attacks eeye=20
      reported are apply to an older release of Windows Media Player and =
to an=20
      older COM component that a tiny fraction of people would have=20
      installed.  They don't help your claim at all because eeye =
can't=20
      compel people to visit a web page they own with the =
appropriate level=20
      of access or download and open a file they supply.  And again =
none=20
      affect me or my 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=20
      the 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=20
        you.
         
        anyone can go to
windows update =
and see if=20
        they require the patches, how many folks here do you think will =
find=20
        that 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=20
          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 =
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_012A_01C5D248.7024DEF0--

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