A guy over at SysInternals is said to be . . .

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #241,361 by Andrew Grygus 1/14/06 8:05:11 PM Reply	A guy over at SysInternals is said to be . . . . . reviewing this and will issue an opinion (nothing on the [link\|http://www.sysinternals.com/\|SysInternals Site] yet though). [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #241,989 by altmann 1/21/06 4:21:27 AM Reply	Sysinternals verdict: Not a back door An insecure design from a more "innocent" time, overlooked by Microsoft's much vaunted security reviews. [link\|http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2006/01/inside-wmf-backdoor.html\|http://www.sysintern...wmf-backdoor.html] -- Chris Altmann
Post #241,994 by n3jja 1/21/06 8:31:13 AM Reply	Just stupidity and incompetence, eh? SOP for M$.

Steve Gibson: "WMF flaw was a deliberate back door". - (Andrew Grygus) - (30) - Jan. 13, 2006, 07:13:31 PM EST

He needs to adjust his tinfoil IMHO -NT - (altmann) - (9) - Jan. 13, 2006, 08:24:32 PM EST

He's got a pretty good case - (bepatient) - (8) - Jan. 13, 2006, 09:28:28 PM EST

Yup - (broomberg) - Jan. 13, 2006, 09:46:45 PM EST

Is there more in it that what was in the transcript? - (altmann) - (3) - Jan. 14, 2006, 03:33:27 AM EST

Where'd you find a transcript? - (jb4) - (2) - Jan. 15, 2006, 12:56:46 PM EST

On GRC - (Another Scott) - Jan. 15, 2006, 01:00:50 PM EST

Podcast is just an MP3 -NT - (drewk) - Jan. 15, 2006, 08:56:10 PM EST

A guy over at SysInternals is said to be . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2) - Jan. 14, 2006, 08:05:11 PM EST

Sysinternals verdict: Not a back door - (altmann) - (1) - Jan. 21, 2006, 04:21:27 AM EST

Just stupidity and incompetence, eh? SOP for M$. -NT - (n3jja) - Jan. 21, 2006, 08:31:13 AM EST

Seems very unlikely to me - (JayMehaffey) - (13) - Jan. 16, 2006, 03:18:21 PM EST

But thats just as bad - (bepatient) - (5) - Jan. 16, 2006, 04:07:08 PM EST

Do I unnderstand this right? - (drewk) - (3) - Jan. 16, 2006, 05:03:27 PM EST

did $MS understand multithreading when they wrote it? -NT - (boxley) - Jan. 16, 2006, 05:17:35 PM EST

It is part of that - (JayMehaffey) - Jan. 16, 2006, 06:38:38 PM EST

No. - (broomberg) - Jan. 16, 2006, 09:08:08 PM EST

I would say not quite as bad - (JayMehaffey) - Jan. 16, 2006, 06:43:55 PM EST

Microsoft have an explanation. - (static) - (6) - Jan. 18, 2006, 01:02:33 AM EST

Artful Dodging - (admin) - (1) - Jan. 16, 2006, 11:01:16 PM EST

Link fixed. - (static) - Jan. 18, 2006, 01:08:26 AM EST

I like how that "blog" doesn't allow comments, too. -NT - (admin) - Jan. 16, 2006, 11:02:31 PM EST

If it's brought forward from legacy stuff . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2) - Jan. 17, 2006, 02:41:55 AM EST

Dang. Beat me to it. That was my first thought. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1) - Jan. 17, 2006, 11:03:40 AM EST

No default program for WMF = No "critical" vulnerability -NT - (altmann) - Jan. 17, 2006, 08:29:52 PM EST

Interesting "analysis" / Guess-of-motives - (Ashton) - (5) - Jan. 21, 2006, 06:42:09 AM EST

Shields up is a waste of time. - (pwhysall) - (4) - Jan. 21, 2006, 11:24:14 AM EST

Elitist smugness - (Ashton) - (3) - Jan. 29, 2006, 06:10:34 AM EST

Whatever, Ash. - (pwhysall) - (2) - Jan. 29, 2006, 07:52:18 AM EST

Sorry Ash, but Peter is right here. -NT - (inthane-chan) - Jan. 29, 2006, 10:43:04 AM EST

I acknowledge those valld criticisms. - (Ashton) - Jan. 30, 2006, 05:35:00 AM EST

Enjoy your amazement.
62 ms