Re: More apparent M$ spyware
From: chrisv (chrisv_at_nospam.invalid)
Date: 03/28/05
- Next message: xpyttl: "Re: More apparent M$ spyware"
- Previous message: Tim Smith: "Re: More apparent M$ spyware"
- In reply to: generalpf_at_gmail.com: "Re: More apparent M$ spyware"
- Next in thread: generalpf_at_gmail.com: "Re: More apparent M$ spyware"
- Reply: generalpf_at_gmail.com: "Re: More apparent M$ spyware"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:41:09 -0600
generalpFUD@gmail.com wrote:
>His response was correct, and your response was comical. Unless you
>can show what DLL rundll.exe was running, you can't say _who_ was
>accessing the Internet.
>
>If I write some spyware for Linux and it runs on kde, since it will be
>a kdeinit process, would I say KDE is spyware? No.
Did someone say "give us our daily FUD"?
- Next message: xpyttl: "Re: More apparent M$ spyware"
- Previous message: Tim Smith: "Re: More apparent M$ spyware"
- In reply to: generalpf_at_gmail.com: "Re: More apparent M$ spyware"
- Next in thread: generalpf_at_gmail.com: "Re: More apparent M$ spyware"
- Reply: generalpf_at_gmail.com: "Re: More apparent M$ spyware"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|