zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 .. - Linux

This is a discussion on zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 .. - Linux ; 'Symantec .. successfully tested the exploit against fully patched Windows XP-SP2 and Windows 2003-SP1 machines' http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=603 -- fuddie: No but yeah but yeah but yeah no but yeah no but yeah......

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41

Thread: zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 ..

  1. zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 ..

    'Symantec .. successfully tested the exploit against fully patched
    Windows XP-SP2 and Windows 2003-SP1 machines'

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=603

    --

    fuddie: No but yeah but yeah but yeah no but yeah no but yeah...

  2. Re: zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 ..


    "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    news:ffnmkq$rli$1@news.datemas.de...
    > 'Symantec .. successfully tested the exploit against fully patched Windows
    > XP-SP2 and Windows 2003-SP1 machines'
    >
    > http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=603
    >


    "LOCAL USERS" only. Once local users have physical access to the machine
    there's dozens of ways to compromise it no matter what OS it's running.



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  3. Re: zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 ..

    ____/ Adam Baum on Wednesday 24 October 2007 16:03 : \____

    > Message-ID: <471f52e6$0$26414$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>
    > From: "Adam Baum"
    > Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
    > Subject: Re: zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 ..
    > Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:03:41 -0400
    > References:

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Seen this earlier. Nymshifting bastard.

    *plonk*


    > Lines: 13
    > X-Priority: 3
    > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.3959
    > X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
    > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.4073
    > NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Oct 2007 14:12:55 GMT
    > X-Complaints-To: abuse@teranews.com
    > Xref: ellandroad.demon.co.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:569997
    >
    > "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    > news:ffnmkq$rli$1@news.datemas.de...
    >> 'Symantec .. successfully tested the exploit against fully patched Windows
    >> XP-SP2 and Windows 2003-SP1 machines'
    >>
    >> http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=603
    >>

    >
    > "LOCAL USERS" only. Once local users have physical access to the machine
    > there's dozens of ways to compromise it no matter what OS it's running.


  4. Re: zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 ..

    On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:59:37 +0100, Doug Mentohl wrote:

    > 'Symantec .. successfully tested the exploit against fully patched
    > Windows XP-SP2 and Windows 2003-SP1 machines'
    >
    > http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=603


    Gee, guess what?

    "Windows Vista does not seem to be affected by the problem, Florio said."

    And yet people keep insisting that Vista is no less vulnerable than XP.

  5. Roy Schestowitz doesn't know how to read usenet headers Re: zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 .. (was: zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 ..)

    On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:08:01 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > ____/ Adam Baum on Wednesday 24 October 2007 16:03 : \____
    >
    >> Message-ID: <471f52e6$0$26414$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>
    >> From: "Adam Baum"
    >> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
    >> Subject: Re: zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 ..
    >> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:03:41 -0400
    >> References:

    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >
    > Seen this earlier. Nymshifting bastard.
    >
    > *plonk*


    Roy, A "reference" means a message you are responding to. Daeron's message
    was the one that used the open proxy, not Adam's.

    Learn how to read a usenet header.

  6. Re: zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 ..

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:59:37 +0100, Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >
    >> 'Symantec .. successfully tested the exploit against fully patched
    >> Windows XP-SP2 and Windows 2003-SP1 machines'
    >>
    >> http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=603

    >
    > Gee, guess what?
    >
    > "Windows Vista does not seem to be affected by the problem, Florio said."
    >
    > And yet people keep insisting that Vista is no less vulnerable than XP.


    Feel free to supply the Msg-IDs where people claim that Vista is affected by
    *all* the problems XP suffers

    It has a lot of problems on its own, which don't occur in XP. And vice versa
    --
    Warning: 10 days have passed since your last Windows reinstall.


  7. Re: Roy Schestowitz doesn't know how to read usenet headers Re:

    On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:25:47 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:08:01 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> ____/ Adam Baum on Wednesday 24 October 2007 16:03 : \____
    >>
    >>> Message-ID: <471f52e6$0$26414$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>
    >>> From: "Adam Baum"
    >>> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
    >>> Subject: Re: zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 .. Date:
    >>> Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:03:41 -0400 References:
    >>>

    >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>
    >> Seen this earlier. Nymshifting bastard.
    >>
    >> *plonk*

    >
    > Roy, A "reference" means a message you are responding to. Daeron's
    > message was the one that used the open proxy, not Adam's.
    >
    > Learn how to read a usenet header.


    I believe that is the very same person who edited my message and reposted
    it complete with derogatory words. I just assumed it was a juvenile home
    from school with nothing better to do so I ignored it.
    --
    Mindy Cohen
    "Life is too short to hate"
    united4luv@g****.com

  8. Re: zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 ..

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:59:37 +0100, Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >
    >> 'Symantec .. successfully tested the exploit against fully patched
    >> Windows XP-SP2 and Windows 2003-SP1 machines'
    >>
    >> http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=603

    >
    > Gee, guess what?
    >
    > "Windows Vista does not seem to be affected by the problem, Florio said."
    >
    > And yet people keep insisting that Vista is no less vulnerable than XP.


    "No Less Vulnerabilities than XP" does not necessarily mean that Vista has
    the same vulnerabilities as XP.

    Ian

  9. Re: zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 ..

    "Roy Schestowitz" schreef in bericht
    news:14208733.mUHV7GYdUP@schestowitz.com...
    > ____/ Adam Baum on Wednesday 24 October 2007 16:03 : \____
    >
    >> Message-ID: <471f52e6$0$26414$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>
    >> From: "Adam Baum"
    >> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
    >> Subject: Re: zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 ..
    >> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:03:41 -0400
    >> References:

    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >
    > Seen this earlier. Nymshifting bastard.
    >
    > *plonk*


    Nobody gives a flying **** who you plonk, you ****y twat!










  10. Erik Funkenbusch doesn't know how to read usenet headers ..

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > Roy, A "reference" means a message you are responding to. Daeron's message was the one that used the open proxy, not Adam's.


    Path: news.datemas.de!not-for-mail
    From: Doug Mentohl
    Message-ID:
    X-Trace: news.datemas.de

    > Learn how to read a usenet header.


    --

    fuddie: No but yeah but yeah but yeah no but yeah no but yeah...

  11. Re: zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 ..

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:23:29 -0500,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:59:37 +0100, Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >
    >> 'Symantec .. successfully tested the exploit against fully patched
    >> Windows XP-SP2 and Windows 2003-SP1 machines'
    >>
    >> http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=603

    >
    > Gee, guess what?
    >
    > "Windows Vista does not seem to be affected by the problem, Florio said."
    >
    > And yet people keep insisting that Vista is no less vulnerable than XP.


    Coming from Erik "Security is a binary condition" Funkenbusch, that's
    funny.

    So Erik ,since you claim that "Security is a binary condition" and XP
    and Vista are not on the same side of that divide, which one is "secure"
    and which one is "not secure" ?




    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHH9p9d90bcYOAWPYRAlSkAKC3ajVbsi73USTEQ9stqK 2u7mBWOACffzHn
    ahmHbKB00y/qlKqjVMaAy3Y=
    =3UN0
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Have you ever noticed that sanction, is it's own antonym?

  12. Re: zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 ..

    Jim Richardson wrote:

    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >> "Windows Vista does not seem to be affected by the problem, Florio said."
    >>
    >> And yet people keep insisting that Vista is no less vulnerable than XP.

    >
    >Coming from Erik "Security is a binary condition" Funkenbusch, that's
    >funny.
    >
    >So Erik ,since you claim that "Security is a binary condition" and XP
    >and Vista are not on the same side of that divide, which one is "secure"
    >and which one is "not secure" ?


    Checkmate!

    >


    8)


  13. Re: zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 ..


    "Jim Richardson" wrote in message
    news:tc25v4-m9u.ln1@dragon.myth...
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:23:29 -0500,
    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:59:37 +0100, Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >>
    >>> 'Symantec .. successfully tested the exploit against fully patched
    >>> Windows XP-SP2 and Windows 2003-SP1 machines'
    >>>
    >>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=603

    >>
    >> Gee, guess what?
    >>
    >> "Windows Vista does not seem to be affected by the problem, Florio said."
    >>
    >> And yet people keep insisting that Vista is no less vulnerable than XP.

    >
    > Coming from Erik "Security is a binary condition" Funkenbusch, that's
    > funny.
    >
    > So Erik ,since you claim that "Security is a binary condition" and XP
    > and Vista are not on the same side of that divide, which one is "secure"
    > and which one is "not secure" ?


    "Security is a binary condition" - Surely an advocate wouldn't take this one
    sentence out of context would they?

    Let's see... (ignoring green) a roulette table is a "binary condition" in
    that the result is either red or black. But imagine a roulette wheel that
    has 30 blacks and only 6 reds. The result would still be a "binary
    condition" in that it could only be red or black. But chances are that the
    outcome would be black and not red.



    >


    Dancing with the stars?



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  14. Re: zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 ..

    On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:12:56 +0200, Ian Hilliard wrote:

    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:59:37 +0100, Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >>
    >>> 'Symantec .. successfully tested the exploit against fully patched
    >>> Windows XP-SP2 and Windows 2003-SP1 machines'
    >>>
    >>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=603

    >>
    >> Gee, guess what?
    >>
    >> "Windows Vista does not seem to be affected by the problem, Florio said."
    >>
    >> And yet people keep insisting that Vista is no less vulnerable than XP.

    >
    > "No Less Vulnerabilities than XP" does not necessarily mean that Vista has
    > the same vulnerabilities as XP.


    Considering that as of yet, there hasn't been a single vulnerability found
    that is Vista only, that's kind of an odd statement.

  15. Re: zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 ..

    Zumwalt Humphry wrote:

    >
    > "Jim Richardson" wrote in message
    > news:tc25v4-m9u.ln1@dragon.myth...
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:23:29 -0500,
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:59:37 +0100, Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> 'Symantec .. successfully tested the exploit against fully patched
    >>>> Windows XP-SP2 and Windows 2003-SP1 machines'
    >>>>
    >>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=603
    >>>
    >>> Gee, guess what?
    >>>
    >>> "Windows Vista does not seem to be affected by the problem, Florio
    >>> said."
    >>>
    >>> And yet people keep insisting that Vista is no less vulnerable than XP.

    >>
    >> Coming from Erik "Security is a binary condition" Funkenbusch, that's
    >> funny.
    >>
    >> So Erik ,since you claim that "Security is a binary condition" and XP
    >> and Vista are not on the same side of that divide, which one is "secure"
    >> and which one is "not secure" ?

    >
    > "Security is a binary condition" - Surely an advocate wouldn't take this
    > one sentence out of context would they?
    >


    Well, what "out of context" could there be with a statement like

    /quote
    Security is one of those funny things. You can talk about being "more"
    secure, but there's no such thing. A vulnerability is a vulnerability, and
    even one makes you just as insecure as anyone else. Security is a binary
    condition, either you are or you aren't.
    /unquote

    Pray tell. These are Erik Fs very words. In all their shining idiocy

    *He* himself claims this lunacy that there is no such thing as "being more
    secure".

    Buit it naturally only applies to linux. Every small linux bug makes it at
    least as insecure as that "wet paper bag security" of windows. According to
    Erik Funkenbusch.
    To Vista that "being more secure" naturally applies. Also according to Erik
    Funkenbusch

    Oh yes, you've done a good job here. You have shown once again that windows
    users in general are stupid.
    --
    Another name for a Windows tutorial is crash course


  16. Re: zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 ..

    On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:51:25 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:23:29 -0500,
    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:59:37 +0100, Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >>
    >>> 'Symantec .. successfully tested the exploit against fully patched
    >>> Windows XP-SP2 and Windows 2003-SP1 machines'
    >>>
    >>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=603

    >>
    >> Gee, guess what?
    >>
    >> "Windows Vista does not seem to be affected by the problem, Florio said."
    >>
    >> And yet people keep insisting that Vista is no less vulnerable than XP.

    >
    > Coming from Erik "Security is a binary condition" Funkenbusch, that's
    > funny.
    >
    > So Erik ,since you claim that "Security is a binary condition" and XP
    > and Vista are not on the same side of that divide, which one is "secure"
    > and which one is "not secure" ?
    >
    >


    You'll notice I didn't use the word "secure", now did I? So why are you
    trying to put words in my mouth?

  17. Re: zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 ..

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    > Zumwalt Humphry wrote:
    >> Jim Richardson wrote...
    >>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> And yet people keep insisting that Vista is no less
    >>>> vulnerable than XP.
    >>>
    >>> Coming from Erik "Security is a binary condition"
    >>> Funkenbusch, that's funny.
    >>>
    >>> So Erik ,since you claim that "Security is a binary
    >>> condition" and XP and Vista are not on the same side of
    >>> that divide, which one is "secure" and which one is "not
    >>> secure" ?

    >>
    >> "Security is a binary condition" - Surely an advocate
    >> wouldn't take this one sentence out of context would they?

    >
    > Well, what "out of context" could there be with a statement
    > like
    >
    > /quote Security is one of those funny things. You can talk
    > about being "more" secure, but there's no such thing. A
    > vulnerability is a vulnerability, and even one makes you just
    > as insecure as anyone else. Security is a binary condition,
    > either you are or you aren't. /unquote
    >
    > Pray tell. These are Erik Fs very words. In all their shining
    > idiocy
    >
    > *He* himself claims this lunacy that there is no such thing as
    > "being more secure".
    >
    > Buit it naturally only applies to linux. Every small linux bug
    > makes it at least as insecure as that "wet paper bag
    > security" of windows. According to Erik Funkenbusch. To Vista
    > that "being more secure" naturally applies. Also according to
    > Erik Funkenbusch
    >
    > Oh yes, you've done a good job here. You have shown once again
    > that windows users in general are stupid.


    This is from nym-thief imposter Mindy Cohen, AKA 1st Lt Jean
    Poole, Adam Baum, Barb Dwyer, Capt. James Pike, Capt. Morgan,
    Captain Commando, Colonel Ichabod Conk, Cpl. Kronk, Dr Gang
    Green, Dr. Disco, Dr. Fafoofnik, Dr. Feelgood, Dr. GroundAxe, Dr.
    Hungwell, Dr. Hurt, Dr. Livingston, Dr. McGillicudy, Dr. Pain,
    Dr. Seymour Butts, Dr. Shlongwell, Dr. Shlongwell (aka your
    Boss), Dr. Smooth, Dr. Zhivago, Gordon Glover, Lintard Luser, Lt.
    Stardust, Mr. Doug Hoel, Mr. X, Ms. Polly Ester, Ofc. Michael
    Clayton, rafael (note the nym-thief couldn't even leave poor
    Rafael alone), Randy Oaks, Sgt. Wannacker, SgtMajor Gansevoort,
    Simon Templar, Sue Romer, Sir Michael Clayton, Warren Piece and
    Zumwalt Humphry.

    --
    HPT

  18. Re: Erik Funkenbusch doesn't know how to read usenet headers ..

    On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:51:16 +0100, Doug Mentohl wrote:

    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> Roy, A "reference" means a message you are responding to. Daeron's message was the one that used the open proxy, not Adam's.

    >
    > Path: news.datemas.de!not-for-mail
    > From: Doug Mentohl
    > Message-ID:
    > X-Trace: news.datemas.de
    >
    >> Learn how to read a usenet header.


    Are you really that stupid?

    You just proved my point, moron.

  19. Re: zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 ..

    On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:23:24 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > /quote
    > Security is one of those funny things. You can talk about being "more"
    > secure, but there's no such thing. A vulnerability is a vulnerability, and
    > even one makes you just as insecure as anyone else. Security is a binary
    > condition, either you are or you aren't.
    > /unquote


    Yes, that's precisely what I said. And it's true. All it takes is one
    vulnerability to compromise you, therefore security is a binary condition.

    You could have the tallest fence, made of the strongest materials, but if
    you have a faulty set of hinges on the gate, despite being otherwise
    secure, you're going to be compromised if someone knows about it.

    > Buit it naturally only applies to linux. Every small linux bug makes it at
    > least as insecure as that "wet paper bag security" of windows. According to
    > Erik Funkenbusch.
    > To Vista that "being more secure" naturally applies. Also according to Erik
    > Funkenbusch


    Bull****, Peter. I have said no such thing. Why do you feel the need to
    lie about what i've said?

  20. Re: zero-day vuln in fully patched Win2K03 ..

    Erik Funkenbusch shuffled:

    >On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:51:25 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:23:29 -0500,
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:59:37 +0100, Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> 'Symantec .. successfully tested the exploit against fully patched
    >>>> Windows XP-SP2 and Windows 2003-SP1 machines'
    >>>>
    >>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=603
    >>>
    >>> Gee, guess what?
    >>>
    >>> "Windows Vista does not seem to be affected by the problem, Florio said."
    >>>
    >>> And yet people keep insisting that Vista is no less vulnerable than XP.

    >>
    >> Coming from Erik "Security is a binary condition" Funkenbusch, that's
    >> funny.
    >>
    >> So Erik ,since you claim that "Security is a binary condition" and XP
    >> and Vista are not on the same side of that divide, which one is "secure"
    >> and which one is "not secure" ?
    >>
    >>

    >
    >You'll notice I didn't use the word "secure", now did I? So why are you
    >trying to put words in my mouth?


    Oh, so you can be more or less vulnerable, but not more or less
    secure. Is that right, Fuddie?

    Idiot.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast