Re: My Windows XP system is 100% secure - nobody can get in

From: Don Jenkins (bigwheeze@hotmail.net)
Date: 02/26/03


From: Don Jenkins <bigwheeze@hotmail.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:59:51 -0800


Fondula di Carceri wrote:

>>untrusted Word documents. Again, you are making up bogus cases that
>>don't apply. You, as a security "expert", have an interest in keeping
>>paranoia up. That is what you are attempting to do. There is no
>>problem. None.
>>You can ask if known vulnerability X is handled. But you are not
>>asking, you are making flat statements that it is a problem, when it is
>>not. You are wrong.
>>
> Ever looked at statistics regarding this matter? If not, do so and get a
> clue.
>
>
>>> It doesn't matter how you 'receive' the Word
>>>document.
>>>
>>Right, but your bogus example was email. You're shifting your story.
>>Either way, your thinking is faulty.
>>
> ...and your rethoric is beyond weak if you want to play wordgames.
>
>
>>>re: not being cognizant
>>>Your reply appears to indicate you didn't understand the exploit and how
>>>
> it
>
>>>may be used.
>>>
>>Your replys show you don't have a clue.
>>
> Who gets paid to do security? You or him?
>
>
>>>re: being aware
>>>You weren't aware that this exploit existed and you still are not aware
>>>
> how
>
>>>this exploit works. You appear to think that because 'you don't open
>>>
> file
>
>>>attachments' that you're immune from it. In fact the only way to ensure
>>>that this doesn't affect you would be to either:
>>>a. not open/edit Word documents, or
>>>
>>Exactly. This is well-known. It is not a problem.
>>
> So, you happily restrict your computing experience severely just because
> your favourite software vendor fails to deliver any quality, stability or
> security?

No bonehead, it is not severely restricted.

(Why is there such a plethora of people in this newsgroup with flaky
logic ability? Serious question.)

>
>
> Sincerely,
> Fondula di Carceri
> [ fondula dot di dot carceri at gmx dot net . gpg or pgp on request ]
>
>
>