Re: controversial paper
From: George Ou (533george_ou234_at_netzero234.com)
Date: 09/28/03
- Next message: George Ou: "Re: controversial paper"
- Previous message: Aubrey Hutchison: "Re: Questions -Factoring"
- In reply to: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: controversial paper"
- Next in thread: George Ou: "Re: controversial paper"
- Reply: George Ou: "Re: controversial paper"
- Reply: Paul Schlyter: "Re: controversial paper"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:40:15 GMT
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 19:42:36 +0200, Mok-Kong Shen
<mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote:
>Cypher wrote:
>>
>> The guy said that ALL vulnerabilities were now patched in windows, and you
>> completly forgot the context, he was comparing them to a vacine. New
>> virus(human) will come, old ones will mutate, the vacine is not for life.
>> You guys had to take a perfectly clear statment and twist it all around.
>
>But there does seem to be some interpretation problem.
>'All known vulnerabilities were now patched' would instead
>not have been subjected to dispute, I suppose.
>
>M. K. Shen
Ok, I apologize for not being completely clear. The context of my
statement was in response to another statement that some critical
vulnerabilities not related to Blaster were still not patched. Cypher
has pretty much explained my statement about as good as I ever can.
However, Mr. Schlyter and Mr. Amling's posts are cheap shots. They
didn't even bother to look at the context or attempt to get any
clarification.
George Ou
http://www.LANArchitect.net
- Next message: George Ou: "Re: controversial paper"
- Previous message: Aubrey Hutchison: "Re: Questions -Factoring"
- In reply to: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: controversial paper"
- Next in thread: George Ou: "Re: controversial paper"
- Reply: George Ou: "Re: controversial paper"
- Reply: Paul Schlyter: "Re: controversial paper"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
