IWETHEY v. 0.3.0
|
TODO
1,095 registered users | 0
active users
| 0 LpH |
Statistics
Login
|
Create New User
Welcome to IWETHEY!
IWETHEY Home
/
IWETHEY Board
/
Patent Wars and Antitrust Forum
/
A guy over at SysInternals is said to be . . .
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
i
we
they
.org
Hello, boys and girls!
114 ms