dennis@home wrote:

> You are a joke.

In what can only be called a strange twist of irony, YOU'RE apparently
oblivious to just what a pathetic joke you've become yourself.

dennis@home wrote:

> Do you want to post your code here so we can see how you do it in 15
> seconds?

It's freely available on the 'net if you know how to look.

C.

dennis@home wrote:

*/plonk!/*

"Christopher Hunter" wrote in message
news:IpI4j.53050$JA1.10491@fe2.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
> dennis@home wrote:
>
>> Do you want to post your code here so we can see how you do it in 15
>> seconds?
>
> It's freely available on the 'net if you know how to look.
>
> C.

No I want your solution not someone else's.

"Alias" wrote in message news:fivfis$1vk$1@aioe.org...
> dennis@home wrote:

8<

>> Just because you own the DVD is irrelevant.
>> The crime is bypassing DRM which is a specific crime in many countries.
>> Live with it until you get the law changed.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Bypassing DRM to do what? You are not clear.

Hi alias,
playing at being thick again?

dennis@home wrote:

>
>
> "Alias" wrote in message
> news:fivfis$1vk$1@aioe.org...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>
> 8<
>
>>> Just because you own the DVD is irrelevant.
>>> The crime is bypassing DRM which is a specific crime in many countries.
>>> Live with it until you get the law changed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Bypassing DRM to do what? You are not clear.
>
> Hi alias,
> playing at being thick again?

Hi dennis, demonstrating being think again?

You weren't clear at all. And, BTW, would you care to explain in which
countries those idiotic DRM laws you mentioned apply?
Hint: It is a tiny subset of "countries". And even there "fair use" applies.

Another hint: LinDVD exists

But then, you are just a typical Vista user. Dumber than that is impossible
--
The probability of someone watching you is proportional to the
stupidity of your action.

dennis@home wrote:
>
>
> "Alias" wrote in message
> news:fivfis$1vk$1@aioe.org...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>
> 8<
>
>>> Just because you own the DVD is irrelevant.
>>> The crime is bypassing DRM which is a specific crime in many countries.
>>> Live with it until you get the law changed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Bypassing DRM to do what? You are not clear.
>
> Hi alias,
> playing at being thick again?

No, it's a sincere question. Can you answer it?

Alias

dennis@home wrote:

> "Christopher Hunter" wrote in
> message news:IpI4j.53050$JA1.10491@fe2.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>> Do you want to post your code here so we can see how you do it in 15
>>> seconds?
>>
>> It's freely available on the 'net if you know how to look.
>>
>> C.
>
> No I want your solution not someone else's.

Here ****wit. Not that you're bright enough to understand a line of
it....


if (opt.do_ptw)
{
opt.next_ptw_try = ap_cur->nb_ivs - (ap_cur->nb_ivs % PTW_TRY_STEP);
do
{
if(ap_cur->nb_ivs >= opt.next_ptw_try)
{
ret = crack_wep_ptw(ap_cur);
if(ret)
{
opt.next_ptw_try += PTW_TRY_STEP;
}
}
if(ret)
usleep(10000);
}while(ret != 0);
}
else if(opt.dict != NULL)
{
ret = crack_wep_dict();
}

"Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer" wrote in
message news:de5fe45bfe6d79f7a9a99b16daa68f63@remailer.cyb eriade.it...
> dennis@home wrote:
>
>> "Christopher Hunter" wrote in
>> message news:IpI4j.53050$JA1.10491@fe2.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you want to post your code here so we can see how you do it in 15
>>>> seconds?
>>>
>>> It's freely available on the 'net if you know how to look.
>>>
>>> C.
>>
>> No I want your solution not someone else's.
>
> Here ****wit. Not that you're bright enough to understand a line of
> it....
>
>
> if (opt.do_ptw)
> {
> opt.next_ptw_try = ap_cur->nb_ivs - (ap_cur->nb_ivs % PTW_TRY_STEP);
> do
> {
> if(ap_cur->nb_ivs >= opt.next_ptw_try)
> {
> ret = crack_wep_ptw(ap_cur);
> if(ret)
> {
> opt.next_ptw_try += PTW_TRY_STEP;
> }
> }
> if(ret)
> usleep(10000);
> }while(ret != 0);
> }
> else if(opt.dict != NULL)
> {
> ret = crack_wep_dict();
> }
>

Rubbish as usual.

Christopher Hunter wrote:
> dennis@home wrote:
>
>> Do you want to post your code here so we can see how you do it in 15
>> seconds?
>
> It's freely available on the 'net if you know how to look.
>
> C.



He won't look himself and if you give him the
proof he will either say you're arguments are
pointless, you idiot are clueless or he will go
onto another thread.
caver1

"caver1" wrote in message
news:4754043d$0$2509$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Christopher Hunter wrote:
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>> Do you want to post your code here so we can see how you do it in 15
>>> seconds?
>>
>> It's freely available on the 'net if you know how to look.
>>
>> C.
>
>
>
> He won't look himself and if you give him the proof

He won't give me the proof.
The best he will do is some half baked dictionary attack that will take a
lot longer than the 15 seconds he claimed.
Anyone can do a dictionary attack and break a lot of machines including
windows, linux, and Mac.

> he will either say you're arguments are pointless, you idiot are clueless
> or he will go onto another thread.
> caver1

No I won't.
Unlike you trolls I stick to threads so that others can kill the thread if
they want to.
You and others just go posting your lies everywhere.
You won't find my posts in many threads here, just the ones where you idiots
have accused me of lying or being wrong.
That's why you are trolls even though you are too stupid to know.

Christopher Hunter wrote:
> J(ohn|ane) Doe wrote:
>
>> Thing is, I don't think most people fully understand just how horribly
>> insecure Windows actually is.
>
> To all intents and purposes, it's /entirely/ open. It is *not* possible to
> secure a Windows box [...]

Sure there is.

(. Just unplug the network cable.)

--
Jon Solberg (remove "nospam" from email address).

dennis@home wrote:

>> Here ****wit. Not that you're bright enough to understand a line of
>> it....
>>
>>
>> if (opt.do_ptw)
>> {
>> opt.next_ptw_try = ap_cur->nb_ivs - (ap_cur->nb_ivs % PTW_TRY_STEP); do
>> {
>> if(ap_cur->nb_ivs >= opt.next_ptw_try) {
>> ret = crack_wep_ptw(ap_cur);
>> if(ret)
>> {
>> opt.next_ptw_try += PTW_TRY_STEP;
>> }
>> }
>> if(ret)
>> usleep(10000);
>> }while(ret != 0);
>> }
>> else if(opt.dict != NULL)
>> {
>> ret = crack_wep_dict();
>> }
>>
>>
> Rubbish as usual.

You probably believe that's a fact.

*snicker*

Jokes on you, ****wit. That's a snippit from Aircrack-NG, a freely
available utility to crack WEP and brute force attack WPA. Something
that's known to work famously against the cruddy encryption used by
WEP as a matter of fact, and your ignorant, uneducated, dumb ass just
called it "rubbish".

Put another check mark beside dennis@home on the "How ****ing Butt Stupid
Can We Look Today" chart folks...

*laugh*

Jon Solberg wrote:


>> To all intents and purposes, it's /entirely/ open. It is *not* possible
>> to secure a Windows box [...]
>
> Sure there is.
>
> (. Just unplug the network cable.)

OK. But it's still open to local attack!

C.

"J(ohn|ane) Doe" wrote in message
news:79f2404e4a23e778ac03a42aba9dde82@hermetix.org ...
> dennis@home wrote:
>
>>> Here ****wit. Not that you're bright enough to understand a line of
>>> it....
>>>
>>>
>>> if (opt.do_ptw)
>>> {
>>> opt.next_ptw_try = ap_cur->nb_ivs - (ap_cur->nb_ivs % PTW_TRY_STEP); do
>>> {
>>> if(ap_cur->nb_ivs >= opt.next_ptw_try) {
>>> ret = crack_wep_ptw(ap_cur);
>>> if(ret)
>>> {
>>> opt.next_ptw_try += PTW_TRY_STEP;
>>> }
>>> }
>>> if(ret)
>>> usleep(10000);
>>> }while(ret != 0);
>>> }
>>> else if(opt.dict != NULL)
>>> {
>>> ret = crack_wep_dict();
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>> Rubbish as usual.
>
> You probably believe that's a fact.
>
> *snicker*
>
> Jokes on you, ****wit. That's a snippit from Aircrack-NG, a freely
> available utility to crack WEP and brute force attack WPA. Something
> that's known to work famously against the cruddy encryption used by
> WEP as a matter of fact, and your ignorant, uneducated, dumb ass just
> called it "rubbish".

Shame your post arrived after I had said what it was in another post.
Still isn't what was claimed and is not going to crack WEP in the 15 seconds
claimed.
So who is it that knows nothing yet again you idiot.

>
> Put another check mark beside dennis@home on the "How ****ing Butt Stupid
> Can We Look Today" chart folks...

Would that be against Jane, John or both?

> *laugh*

You laugh at yourself?
Its good for you actually, keep it up.

Christopher Hunter wrote:
> Jon Solberg wrote:
>
>
>>> To all intents and purposes, it's /entirely/ open. It is *not* possible
>>> to secure a Windows box [...]
>> Sure there is.
>>
>> (. Just unplug the network cable.)
>
> OK. But it's still open to local attack!
>
> C.
>

No computer is safe to a local attack. If you have psychical access to
the machine, you can hack it. Depending on knowledge, skill, luck, OS
and time, that is.

If you need to be really safe, throw the thing in a locked safe and
destroy the key. Come to mention it, you really should incinerate the thing.

Just to be on the safe side. ;-)

--
Jon Solberg (remove "nospam" from email address).

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:43:44 +0100, Jon Solberg wrote:

> If you have psychical access to
> the machine, you can hack it.

I've been waiting all my life for *that* API to be published.