Slashdot Mirror
New IE Zero Day
RebootKid writes "Microsoft has released a notice about
a new zero day attack against Internet Explorer. Guess it's going to be more a 'Script Kiddie Christmas,' less of a 'White Christmas.' 'Ok, fess up — who asked for an IE 0 day for Christmas? I'm guessing Santa got his lumps of coal mixed up with a bag of exploits. This exploit has been discussed over the last day or so on full disclosure and a number of other sites. Metasploit already has a module available for it (just search for CSS & IE). Microsoft has put out an advisory 2488013 regarding the issue which manifests itself when a specially crafted web page is used and could result in remote code execution on the client.'"
Merry Xmas
If you felt the story was newsworthy, I have no doubt that it was submitted in a form that was better than this one, or that you could have re-wrote it.
or at least it's not on the list.
It's noteworthy, because while you and I don't use IE, we support tens, hundreds, or thousands of people that do. Therefore, we like to be informed about what's going on and what we can expect, especially if it will impact our Christmas vacation.
With that said, I still use IE often, even though Chrome is my browser of choice. Don't get me started on Firefox. If malware can be defined as an app that sucks every last megabyte of usable RAM, then Firefox is malware.
Microsoft is not being entirely straightforward in their report. This is not an IE bug. It is a .Net bug in mscorie.dll. Mscorie.dll is not required by IE. (IE works just fine, so to speak, without .Net.)
Just don't put this on the Christmas Elves or Elf Bowling sites.... Let's see, risk factors:
* Tech-clueless relative just got their first computer for Christmas. "Chooses" I.E. as browser. Drawn in by Elf Bowling. There's a virus on your computer, click here!
Oh, man....
And related to what an earlier poster said, why is it that we need to use Internet Explorer in order to update our Windows boxes? I still find that a little bit anti-trust.
To borrow from 2001: My God--it's full of holes!
I don't use technology X and therefor nobody else does! LALALALALALA NOT LISTENING
Is it a slow news day? ;)
Next you are going to say there are some unpatched vulnerabilities in IE.
Well the (+1 score) is that they have called for using the “The Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit” (EMET) tool to mitigate the problem. The bigger question is why is EMET not a part of the OS proper? If the EMET tool is capable of solving this problem then why the &83$$@# didn't they force an install of EMET to solve all the Adobe issues? Why are they NOT stepping forward to fix all the third party application security issues?
What security features can you add with EMET?
Dynamic Data Execution Prevention (DEP)
Structure Exception Handler Overwrite Protection (SEHOP)
Heap Spray Allocation
Null Page Allocation
Export Address Table Access Filtering
Mandatory Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR)
Now I have several questions, like why is this not part of the OS? Why is it not a default where these can be turned off on a case by case basis? Have untrusted browser plugins? And why isn't Flash/acrobat/shockwave forced to run under it? Admittedly Acrobat-X (sandboxed version of Acrobat) is a step in the right direction, but wouldn't it be better to have all applications turned on by default?
The Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit 2.0 is Now Available
http://tinyurl.com/28znulg
If its not being utilized yet, and the first notice came from MS, it is in no way a 0 day.
The vulnerabilities (there are two by the way) were first disclosed by WooYun.org although metasploit did not add modules until after MS's advisory. I don't know f it was exploited before it became public or not.
3. Attacker installs super good anti-virus software that informs you of the 137 virus you have installed.
4. Super smart victim buys super good anti-virus updates with credit card.
5. Attacker make money, victim get protected. Everybodies win.
And this is noteworthy why?
Because a significant number of people on Slashdot are security geeks and enjoy learning about exploits, or are sysadmins that manage at least some machines where the users can get to IE.
All or any of the above. Seriously, pick a malicious activity that can be accomplished with a PC program and there you have it. Oh, and firewall does not protect you from these kind of explots. It (probably) will make it a little harder to send/receive info to/from the internet by a malicious app but in most cases won't help a lot, depending on how you configured it, how much attention do you pay, etc. Besides there are ways to trick it.
There are MANY ways to do this, but its tricky to get the injected code just right for each possible target system. Microsoft makes a good target, because here are so many machines configured exactly the same way, and Microsoft makes it too easy by not coding things in a secure manor to begin with.
And this is noteworthy why? How many Slashdotters use Internet Explorer for anything other than the occasional WindowsUpdate in XP? This may be News for Nerds, but it hardly matters. Everyone here knows very well that Internet Explorer is too dangerous for general Web use. That Microsoft is suffering yet another security failure doesn't really elicit much interest from me, I must say.
Firstly, a serious security vulnerability in a popular (for whatever reason) software tool is always noteworthy, if just for the fact that it's interesting. Secondly, the overall state of IE is large enough to affect everyone in some way or another. And finally, numerous people here administer systems or have friends and family that may run or require Internet Explorer, and such a bulletin could certainly prove useful to them to prevent this attack from damaging those they (are paid to) care about.
It irks me that there are better options than Explorer readily available, but so many people just don't care enough about their own security and privacy to avail themselves of those options. It's not like paying through the nose for an anti-virus product: these things are free to use! I feel less and less sorry for Explorer users every day, having heard all the excuses ("it doesn't look like Explorer, my favorite free-malware-site doesn't like it, it's too hard to install, I'm too stupid to use a computer, and so on ad infinitum.) It's not as if the likes of Firefox, Chrome and Opera are hard to find, or aren't in the public's eye nowadays. Hell, a few months ago a major U.S. bank issued a warning recommending that its customers eschew Explorer in favor of anything else and further recommended that any online banking be done in anything but Windows (preferably Linux/Unix.) Of course, the month after that they made another public statement to the effect that they would only support Internet Explorer (note: they didn't follow through on that threat. I got the distinct impression that it was a "left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing" situation.)
I've met smart people who think that Internet Explorer is the Internet. They don't know or care what a browser is. Technology, Internet included, is just another tool, and it needs to work correctly. To tell someone like this to get another browser is not feasible; without a long explanation, they will never like the idea of switching from something that is (or appears to be) working to something different.
Approaching someone and taking the time to explain the situation and answer their questions is the only way to make a transition sit comfortably with them. Unfortunately, people "in-the-know" don't have the time or desire to address the remaining population. The best effort I've seen to address the non-technical public is Google's "get a faster browser" button on their home page, and even then I've heard those who say "well, mine is fast enough". Someone has to explain things and answer their questions.
I've encountered pretty popular attitude that viruses only exist on shady websites (e.g., gambling, and porn) and that caring about or addressing security is not only unnecessary, but also an admission of one's intention to visit such sites. Once again, the only way to break past this is to take the time to sit down, explain things, and answer questions.
Short of prosthelytizing nerd squads going door-to-door, there's not much that can be done. Microsoft got themselves into this biased market mess by aggressively pushing IE and locking out other browsers, and they are wholly responsible for keeping their shit together. Maybe someone should sue them for damages.
Also, keep in mind that serious flaws have been found in Firefox, Safari, and Chrome. IE, like Windows, is targeted more heavily than other browsers due to its market share. If IE is ditched en masse, I would bet money on the number of flaws in other browsers growing significantly higher. This doesn't absolve Microsoft (see previous paragraph), but it does suggest that the problem is larger than IE and attitude.
from the CVE:
Use-after-free vulnerability in the CSharedStyleSheet::Notify function in the Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) parser in mshtml.dll, as used in Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 and 8 and possibly other products, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) and execute arbitrary code via multiple @import calls in a crafted document.
Lols, use after free in C++, the best language to shoot yourself in the foot with once again.
But what kind of remote code do they execute, is it some kind of program already installed ?
Do they make you download some program and execute it silently?
The latter. A remote code execution exploit is one that can download some program and execute it without your knowledge or permission.
Does all these only works when victim has (good)firewall installed?
A good antivirus should prevent most stuff like this from getting its claws dug in. A firewall... maybe, maybe not.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
How many slashdotters support many users who refuse to use anything other than IE despite our insistence and warnings and enabling them to use another browser. So, knowing that there is a new 0 day is newsworthy and relevant to our interests.
Maybe the majority of slashdotters are on firefox, chrome, opera right now, but the software we're developing may only work on IE. The Network admins will need to deal with their users using IE. And a lot of our relatives are still using IE
When your aunt Bertha calls on christmas and goes "MY INTERNET IS BROKEN", i'll be able to go "ah yea, I remember reading about that on slashdot".
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
4. Profit?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Microsoft has released a notice about a new zero day attack against Internet Explorer.
And this is noteworthy why? How many Slashdotters use Internet Explorer for anything other than the occasional WindowsUpdate in XP? This may be News for Nerds, but it hardly matters. Everyone here knows very well that Internet Explorer is too dangerous for general Web use. That Microsoft is suffering yet another security failure doesn't really elicit much interest from me, I must say.
Weeellllll, that's the stereotype, sure, but the on-the-ground reality paints a different picture.
Surely you've noticed that Firefox 3.6 is up to its 13th point release since January,and #14 is just around the corner. The first Secunia security advisory for this browser was issued within weeks of its initial release, and there now have been 11 in total, covering 85 separate vulnerabilities in Firefox 3.6. Look at SA42517 for an example, which was published two weeks ago. In that one advistory alone, 13 different security bugs are addressed, covering a wide variety of attack vectors like large Javascript arrays and large parameters to document.write(). And when you look at the fixes made in source control to patch these bugs, you sometimes scratch your head and wonder, how the fuck did they miss that when coding it?
But the problem with Firefox is worse than that. On Windows and Mac OS X, users are prompted over and over again to install these point updates. It requires elevation to Administrator privileges, and it requires restarting the browser. I see people routinely ignoring these updates because it'd interrupt what they're doing..... and the web server logs I have access to are a mishmash of Firefox browser versions.
This is a browser with 25% of the worldwide marketshare -- more than any version of Internet Explorer save for version 8.
So.... how about Google Chrome, you say? Their patching setup is far superior (that's why I use it), but it's not like the browser is any better-written. Just this month there have already been eighteen disclosed security vulnerabilities. And that's only slightly worse than average for a month in Chrome land. There are actually a number of Google Chrome bugs which are marked as only affecting the Linux version, too. Look at CVE-2010-4041 for an example of what I mean.
What I'm trying to say here is this -- Internet Explorer's security profile isn't significantly different than the other major vendors. They all have poorly-coded browsers that focused on packing the features in, without taking due consideration to the safety of the code they're writing. If you want to single out Microsoft for criticism, let's talk about the fact that they take so long to get these fixes out, and that reboots are often required to get the patches in place. That's where Firefox and especially Chrome are ahead.
I thought that zero day means that somebody uses it in a attack and it appears that it hasn't been known before the said attack. Public Disclosure automatically disqualifies it as zero-day.
Zero-day generally indicates that the attack is in-use (by bad guys) at the time that it becomes known by the vendor and/or the public (e.g., zero days for anyone to take steps to mitigate the damage). This is as opposed to a vulnerability that is only known to the public after it has been addressed by the software maintainer. "Zero-day" can also mean an attack that is still viable at the time of disclosure, though there is less significance in the specific choice of term.
Zero day refers to how much time an administrator has to patch his systems before an exploit is known. Since this is still not patched, it is indeed a zero day exploit, although if the exploit is as yet unused it is not a zero day attack.
This space intentionally left blank.
Microsoft got themselves into this biased market mess by aggressively pushing IE and locking out other browsers,
Wha? Since when did Microsoft "lock out" other browsers?
Sorry for the ambiguity; I was referring to locking them out of the browser market via aggressive pushing, default installation in the most popular operating system, IE-only web sites due to standards deviations, inseparable integration with the host operating system, and use of (at the time) Microsoft-only APIs for optimizations, plug-ins, and media capabilities. People always have had a choice, but Microsoft used every bit of their considerable influence and position to make that choice for them, causing an effective "lock out".
I didn't use the term appropriately, and I would retract if it I could; s/locking out/thoroughly defeating/g. My point was that by becoming the dominant product in the market and accepting that role, Microsoft also inherited the responsibility for operating as a major player in securing that market, and they have grossly failed in this role.
Exactly what I thought...
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
more outline and summary of the article, its content, affected users and payload. bonus points for countermeasures to employ.
less goofy references to your fucking holidays.
sincerely,
the overworked windows administrator trying to use slashdot for an intended purpose.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Ah, I agree.
The cynical person in me would say that the dominance of IE is at least half of the blame on Mozilla's disastrous decision to re-write Netscape from scratch, resulting in them having literally no way of competing with Microsoft. (It's also telling that IE won against Netscape on the Macintosh, a platform which wasn't subject to the biases you mentioned.)
I mean, if you want Microsoft to write good software, you need to compete with them-- that's just how it works. No competition to Microsoft = no effort from Microsoft.
Comment of the year
My apologies. Part of that is my own warped sense of humor, part of it is a direct quote from SANS.
I'll endeavor to work better/worse humor into future submissions.
*Note to self: Must work harder on pleasing all of the people all of the time*
And this is noteworthy why?
Because a significant number of people on Slashdot are security geeks and enjoy learning about exploits, or are sysadmins that manage at least some machines where the users can get to IE.
Or you work as a lowly developer or IT Grunt Technician a company where you are pretty strictly IE only - based on policies set forth by Vice Presidents who don't know how technology works.
When I went to a 64-bit OS I decided I'd force DEP on. Windows actually has 4 DEP modes: always off, always on, opt in, opt out. It just only shows the opt in and opt out choices in the GUI. So I turned it on. After all, this was some time since DEP had come about, figured things would be fine.
Wrong answer. Tons of apps bombed on DEP errors. Seems lots of apps like to execute from memory they forgot to mark for code. I tried the opt out mode for a bit, figuring that I'd just add the apps that were problems, but it got to be too much since you have to do it by hand (there isn't an "add exception" button in the error or anything), some apps had multiple sub apps that had to be added, and of course it isn't like apps would always just fail to execute, sometimes they'd run fine until you were in them and working, then bomb (audio apps with plugins were notorious for this).
So now my computer is in the default op in state, meaning only apps that ask for DEP get it. Not as secure, but such is life. Good news is as far as I can tell all my apps that run at any privilege above user DO use DEP so that's nice.
Botnets! Worldwide botnets!
What kind of boxes are on on botnets?
Compaq, HP, Dell and Sony, true!
Gateway, Packard Bell, maybe even Asus, too.
Are boxes! Found on botnets!
All running Windows. FOO!
Why, yes! Yes I Am a smug, OS X using bastard!
How kind of you to notice!
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
And then you go: "But Aunt Bertha, it's Christmas, I can't help you today."
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
It is also important to take note that IE is the second most secure browser after chrome, as it is the only one to make full use of WIC(Windows Integrity Controls), although does not have the sandboxing that Chrome has.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Ah, I agree.
The cynical person in me would say that the dominance of IE is at least half of the blame on Mozilla's disastrous decision to re-write Netscape from scratch, resulting in them having literally no way of competing with Microsoft.
You fail to mention that Netscape (4.x) was in no way or shape capable of beating IE. It was a pile of crap. IE went into dominant position because it was a so much better browser starting at IE4.
(It's also telling that IE won against Netscape on the Macintosh, a platform which wasn't subject to the biases you mentioned.)
Well, this is not the case anymore. Again, they won because they had no worthy competition.
I mean, if you want Microsoft to write good software, you need to compete with them-- that's just how it works. No competition to Microsoft = no effort from Microsoft.
But they did make lots and lots of efforts to wipe Netscape out of the map. They did succeed because Netscape had such an horrendous product AND because they did all they could for it to go away, not counting technical superiority.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
If the software you're developing only works in IE, someone somewhere made a bad decision. Also, how does my Aunt Bertha know you? ;)
No, you haven't.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
>>>you are a troll
You sound like a 10 year old, except he usually says "you are a liar" or "you are an idiot" or "you are a dick" or some other insult. Point: It's still not acceptable to be going 'round name calling regardless of your age or justification.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Or have a relative who is guaranteed to get all the latest malware, and will have to remove it while home for the holidays.
Any ideas on how I can get out of it this year?
Speaking of Firefox security. Firefox has a ways to go in regards to the issue of unwanted pop-unders.
When visiting a website, even at the highest security settings, can [u]open another window unsolicited[/u], that's a security flaw.
Ron
If the software you're developing only works in IE, someone somewhere made a bad decision.
Ah if only it was that simple.. The company I originally developed software like this years ago when it was basically just IE or Netscape. They made it support both, thinking that those two would be used and supported forever. Well netscape died, and all that work going into supporting it was all for naught 5-10 years later. Because there are going to be bugs you see in one browser and not the other, and fully supporting additional browsers will require a lot of additional overhead.
Two years ago we started developed a similar version of the main site, and there was some debate over whether the site should just suppport IE, or IE and firefox. We started with both, then quickly dropped it because of the large number of firefox-only bugs. I look back at this and I think that was a good decision, because for all we know in 5 years firefox will be dead, and chrome will be the big #2 (or #1).
This might be a poor business model if you're looking to attract single customers from a site, but this stuff we develop is generally bought by larger corporations that have all their employees use it. We can dictate the terms & requirements a little easier and not risk losing customers by not supporting a browser. And unfortunately, we'll have to deal with any IE issues they have that get blamed on us because of some IE exploit...
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
You fail to mention that Netscape (4.x) was in no way or shape capable of beating IE. It was a pile of crap. IE went into dominant position because it was a so much better browser starting at IE4.
Yep, I know (for example, the CSS/JSSS fiasco). But I think the argument here is that even if the rewrite was necessary, Netscape could have released a 5.0 version based on the old codebase in the meantime to compete against IE5.
Technology, Internet included, is just another tool, and it needs to work correctly. To tell someone like this to get another browser is not feasible
I think if a carpenter told me that the brand of hammer that I, a non-carpenter, was using at home had a tendency for the head to fly off the handle, I'd be pretty damned interested, and I'd be looking to buy a different brand of hammer.
And in a corporate environment, the admin may know that IE is a crappy browser, but the technically clueless middle manager knows that "nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft". That's why a lot of corporate desktops have IE.
And yes, IE is far from the only problem, holes show up in any application.
Free Martian Whores!
Netscape 4 was not DOM based. There was just no way to make it competitive against the beast that IE was at the time.
Let's make a car analogy, it's been a while. If you have a 1995 Toyota tercel and are about to start a race against a Corvette, new tires or a new carburator ain't going to change much. What you need is a new car.
Ahhhh... Car analogies makes me feel good.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Fine, let's not allow pop-unders, but can we leave in the ability to move windows to the front?
-- thinkyhead software and media
Start charging.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
prosthelytizing nerd squads going door-to-door
Those would be people who aggressively evangelise the replacement of body parts, right?
"Mom! The Jaime Sommers Witnesses are here again! Do we wanna buy an H+ Magazine?"
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
We live in a highly specialised society. You can be highly intelligent and still not know squat about something you use in your everyday like.
While that is no doubt true, I'm wondering what happens to an advanced global technological society based on such high specialisation and the resulting relative general ignorance when it is combined with a rising level of cynical anti-social manipulation that leaves anyone not a domain expert in any given domain, wide open to fraud and abuse from 99% of the rest of a 7 billion person planet.
Guess we're going to find out real soon! Won't that be fun!
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
No, you haven't.
That's nothing. I know smart people who believe that AOL is the Internet.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
This year? No. Next year? Sure.
Make their account a limited user account only.
Change the admin password, and don't tell him/her what it is.
Enable the Remote Assistance feature just in case it's absolutely necessary.
Set anti-virus to be updated automatically, and make the schedule locked to anybody but admin. In fact, turn off all AV controls to non-admins except for "run a scan now." MSE can do this, by the way.
Do the same for Windows Update (force it on, don't let a non-admin turn it off).
Works best on Vista or Win7, though it's possible to use XP or 2000 as a limited user too (just more annoying). Giving a non-techie Admin on an Internet-connected box makes about as much sense as giving a Linux newbie a root login; it's easier to do everything, most notably shooting yourself in the foot.
Expect to get some calls related to "I need to install X" and be ready to handle them. Note that one advantage of this approach is that you can handle them by educating your relative about things that really should *NOT* get installed.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
It seems that the vulnerability in this case is unguarded recursion - something that can be written just as nicely in plain old C.
APK!
Wait, what's APK?
Dude. Relax, have some eggnog. Put your feet up on that stack of computer magazines and take a deep breath.
This is the internet. Either you're trolling, or the person you're yelling at is. Either way, relax.
I just pooped your party.
No, you haven't.
Half the university staffers and a few professors I supported think all urls go in the search bar, no matter how small and inconspicuous it may appear right next to the main URL bar.
Must have something to do with browser GUIs giving you two textfields without distinct background color. Only geeks notice that "the one on the left is the one filled with text all the time... perhaps reading that text will contain something useful... ooh, it says facebook and i happen to be on my facebook." Nongeeks never read the "this one is a google search bar" text blurred until onfocus() is triggered. Instead they go "ooh, that box on the left is all taken up with letters, let me ignore it and use the empty one here on the right. Ooh, i'll ignore that i always end up on google and have like 3 different places that might all be facebook"
Merry Xmas
NMAP Christmas Tree Scan... lite up your lights.... do not forget +b proxy. Hack the Gibson muhahahahaha
All cows eat grass!
Still afraid trollie? Can't say as I blame you, as even other websites laugh at you and make fun of your HOPES file. Afraid to put it to the test? Can't hide behind anecdotes with a REAL test, after all I have a great anecdote about your mom and the sound she makes when I give her the beefstick, doesn't make it scientific.
Like I said you now have TWO ways to prove your magical woobie works. 1.-Post your little HOPES file rant on the first post of ANY /. article along with your IP address, if your magical woobie works that shouldn't be any problem. 2.-Post you magical HOPES file rant on any first post along with the mathematical proof that it can scale.
So don't be such a coward trollie, step up! Quit hiding in terror in the back of /. like you mom hiding from an ass pounding, here is your chance! Prove it to the world! Otherwise you are nothing but a pathetic little coward who isn't worthy of licking the sweat from my balls. I've provided the links, I've backed MY position up with more than ranting bullshit. What's a matter trollie? Can't find anything but anecdotes? Afraid to accept a challenge? Poor little chickenshit trollie. Must be sad to be punked so easily.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
"prosthelytizing nerd squads going door-to-door" Haha I love it! Every neighbourhood should have a nerd squad :)
Make IE history
Yes, I can do that. 8 wget invocations to get the data, cat the 8 resulting files into sed 's/[[:space:]]/\t/', pipe into sort, pipe into uniq. Job Done. Why does your program take 20 minutes to do this very, very simple process?
But his is written in Visual Basic and has pretty ASCII art in the title bar!
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Alexander Peter Kowalski, going on a tirade because somebody actually had the audacious nerve to NOT REINVENT THE WHEEL!
Tell me, Alexander Peter Kowalski, what operating system do you use? Did you write it yourself? HA. I’m betting your own precious program made some system calls to CODE YOU DIDN’T WRITE, too!
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
I’m not “clone53421”, learn to read moron. And that wasn’t my script, I just stepped into the fray to let everyone know you’re a full retard.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
I corrected you by showing you HOW/WHERE/WHEN/WHY your already blown code won't work on HOSTS file data import & conversion
That wasn’t me, you dense fucking ass. I’ve told you it wasn’t me, and the guy who wrote it has told you that I’m not him. How much more clear could we make it?
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Nobody shows up that late into a discussion like this
I did. Your argument is invalid.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Again: You obviously "slipped" when you hit the submit button this time - instead of replying "AC" as you can!
I’m replying to you under my username on purpose, you dimwit. That’s the only way I can make it obvious that I’m not the same Anonymous Coward that you’re currently foaming at the mouth over.
And I never got banned at any PCReview forum, and the link you’re posting doesn’t even work. I don’t know what you’re off on this time, but it appears to be a load of garbage as usual.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
NOBODY comes in this late into a post this deep, & replies, unless they were here already!
I’ve been here all along. I just haven’t been posting until recently. But don’t let that stop you from blathering your drivel.
Despite your stating initially "your code" (script that uses others' work really) works right
For the last time, that wasn’t me. I don’t even use Linux and wouldn’t have the slightest idea how to write a shell script like that. I’d have to completely teach myself shell scripting to even begin, and that much effort would be stupid just to win an argument with you.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
You can e-mail the admins if you like, and they can verify that the script was not posted by me.
I’m done arguing with you, anyway.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
You’re obviously too scared to e-mail the admins, who will just verify what I already told you.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.