Re: ELLiE
From: afire (afireinyuma_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 05/09/03
- Next message: Bill Sisk [MSFT]: "RE: Patch q811493i, Terminal Server, Metaframe XP SP2"
- Previous message: Ken Wickes [MSFT]: "Re: ELLiE"
- In reply to: Jeff Cochran: "Re: ELLiE"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:15:03 -0700
Jeff Cochran, I honestly can not understand why you think
I have a problem with my attitude. I believe I thanked
folks in every post I wrote, except perhaps the last one I
wrote in response to yours. As far as I can see, my only
problem here has been my ignorance of computers, hackers,
etc., and because of this, misunderstanding some of the
replies I received. Something I have been steadily
working on. As I mentioned before, I do have anti-virus
programs and firewalls through Norton, Symantec, and AVG.
>-----Original Message-----
>On Thu, 8 May 2003 12:06:07 -0700, "afire"
<afireinyuma@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Uh, I realize I am quite ignorant in regards to
computers,
>>however, I am not completely stupid. Obviously there is
>>more to it than it merely being arabic for update.
>
>I'm not certain there is anything more obvious. It's a
logical, and
>technically accurate explanation. Issues with localized
versions
>don't normally crop up in US distributions, so it may not
be obvious
>to you, but to those who deal with localizations it makes
perfect
>sense.
>
>>Otherwise, why would microsoft have a bulletin
concerning
>>Q323255, how it has an unchecked buffer in windows help
>>facility which could enable code execution? This
article
>>as well as many others state that an attacker could gain
>>control over the user's security system, as well as this
>>being a critical matter needing a patch to fix it?
>
>That's very true. Only it's not the issue in the case of
the ELLiE
>display. There are actually quite a few possible hacking
methods, and
>quite a few possible patches. Plus a large number of
configuration
>issues that could allow unauthorized access to your
system.
>
>I'm assuming you're a home user/individual. It's just as
important
>for you to be diligent in security issues as anyone else,
only
>sometimes the terminology and techniques seem foreign.
Because of
>that, sometimes you'll be tempted to see hackers where
they don't
>exist.
>
>It's just like growing up. As a kid, I saw monsters in
the closet. I
>countered that by leaving the closet door open and the
lights on. As
>I grew up, I realized there weren't actually monsters in
the closet,
>and it was my lack of knowledge that led me to believe
that there
>might be.
>
>The same is true of computer users. The press and quite
a few
>software publishers are making people very aware that
hackers are out
>there, and there's possibility of you having a
vulnerability.
>Suddenly, any glitch in your computer system starts to
look like
>hackers. Fortunately, most of them aren't. And in this
particular
>case, it doesn't make sense anyway, and here's why:
>
>The Windows Update process is actually very secure (Think
about it, it
>has to be or Microsoft would have serious public
relations issues).
>In addition, literally thousands, maybe even millions,
have downloaded
>the same patch, and there have been only a few reports of
the display
>problem, and no attributable reports of other issues. In
addition,
>when you know the technology behind localization of
Windows versions,
>the Arabic explanation makes perfect sense.
>
>Does this mean you haven't been hacked? No. But you
weren't hacked
>by Windows Update. Does that mean you can rest easy?
Again no.
>There are dozens of things you should be doing to protect
your system.
>Using a firewall, using anti-virus software, staying up
to date on
>patches and staying informed are all critical. Use the
resources
>posted, and search out more on your own. The best
defense is to be
>informed.
>
>> I came
>>here for some help, not put-downs. I don't expect any
>>answers to this post, nor do I any longer expect any
help
>>here.
>
>You got the help, you just didn't like it. The put downs
are in
>response to your attitude, and certainly aren't meant to
drive you
>away. Sorry to have you go away feeling unresolved,
there really is a
>wealth of information you'll have to work harder to find.
>
>Jeff
>.
>
- Next message: Bill Sisk [MSFT]: "RE: Patch q811493i, Terminal Server, Metaframe XP SP2"
- Previous message: Ken Wickes [MSFT]: "Re: ELLiE"
- In reply to: Jeff Cochran: "Re: ELLiE"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
