From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_041D_01C59C03.D72B9600
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Everything you premise on your false claim regarding "the lack of a =
security control" is bogus not just because your premise is false but
= because it is bogus on its own right.

Rich

  "Geo"  wrote in message
news:42f73160{at}w3.nls.net...
  "John Beckett" 
wrote in message
  news:7l8ef1hnk78tj9dkoa072evo3gvb9q7n1o{at}4ax.com...

  > You really should step back on this one! I would be the first to =
cheer
  > when you point out some stupid design decision in Microsoft or Cisco =
or
  > whatever systems. But THERE IS NO VULNERABILITY in Monad!

  In the strictest sense you are correct, there is no bug being =
exploited. But
  now realize that the lack of a security control could also enable =
something
  like oh I don't know lets say a public web server to be compromised =
because
  a scripting language can't be controlled so anyone with a website =
could
  purposely upload a script that infects all the other scripts on the =
system.

  DOES THAT NOT MAKE THE MACHINE VULNERABLE???

  I'm not saying that's what this is all about, I'm just trying to give =
you an
  idea why someone would have to create proof of concept code to make a =
point.
  Whether that point was for the programmers at MS or whether it was for =
an
  underground group of virus writers or DHS or whoever I've no idea. I =
just
  think it likely that it was for the guys writing the shell.

  Geo.


------=_NextPart_000_041D_01C59C03.D72B9600
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








  
Everything you premise on =
your false=20
claim regarding "the lack of a security control" is bogus not
just = because your=20
premise is false but because it is bogus on its own right.
 
Rich
 

  "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  in message news:42f73160{at}w3.nls.net..."J=
ohn=20
  Beckett" <FirstnameSurname{at}com=">mailto:FirstnameSurname{at}compuserve.com.omit">FirstnameSurname{at}com=
puserve.com.omit>=20
  wrote in messagenews:7l8ef1hnk78=
tj9dkoa072evo3gvb9q7n1o{at}4ax.com...>=20
  You really should step back on this one! I would be the first to =
cheer>=20
  when you point out some stupid design decision in Microsoft or Cisco=20
  or> whatever systems. But THERE IS NO VULNERABILITY in =
Monad!In=20
  the strictest sense you are correct, there is no bug being exploited.=20
  Butnow realize that the lack of a security control could also =
enable=20
  somethinglike oh I don't know lets say a public web server to be=20
  compromised becausea scripting language can't be controlled so =
anyone with=20
  a website couldpurposely upload a script that infects all the =
other=20
  scripts on the system.DOES THAT NOT MAKE THE MACHINE=20
  VULNERABLE???I'm not saying that's what this is all
about, I'm =
just=20
  trying to give you anidea why someone would have to create proof =
of=20
  concept code to make a point.Whether that point was for the =
programmers at=20
  MS or whether it was for anunderground group of virus writers or =
DHS or=20
  whoever I've no idea. I justthink it likely that it was for the =
guys=20
  writing the
shell.Geo.

------=_NextPart_000_041D_01C59C03.D72B9600--

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