To be fair, he never claimed they removed *all* buffer which could overflow, only the ones they _found_ "in an automated way".
That said, since he's "outgoing" and with a comfortable financial situation, I doubt he much cares. Perhaps in his spare time he can lounge by the pool and read something enlightening.
In infinite space, even the most unlikely events must take place somewhere.
So does that mean there really is a 10,000 mile long turtle swimming through space with four elephants on its back holding up a flat disc shaped world?
[paraphrased from someone's alt.2600 post. apologies to the poster; I can't remember who it was]
The term Hacker vs. Cracker is just an attempt by a bunch of pompous, self righteous, tie wearing dorks to separate themselves from the unruly upstarts that have surfaced in the past 10 years. Hacker isn't a name that solely belongs to those people who somehow think that they're Marvin Minsky's grandchildren. It's a name for whatever a person happens to call themselves. I'm sure there's a great number of professional Axe Murderers who are dismayed that a bunch of computer nerds are calling themselves 'hackers' too, but you don't see THEM acting all indignant over it.
gorilla writes: > The theoretical permissions are one thing, the actual ones used > in practice are another. As Microsoft Office requires the %WINNT% > directory to be world writable, that means in practice, the majority > of NT setups are insecure.
I did not find this to be true on any of the 4 win2k (sp2)boxes I checked. They are all pretty much as configured "out of the box". They may be insecure for other reasons, but this (%WINNT% world writable) does not appear to be the case.
Not necessarily at the point of purchase. I went to Amazon and, sacrificing my consumer profile for the greater good, added the CD to my "cart" (I can't imagine the pablum I'll now be offered through spam). There was no apparent warning displayed on the page for the CD, nor when I went through the motions of almost ordering it (couldn't go that far).
Joking aside, I think this touches on a key point. It's not whether they have the information, but what they choose to do with it.
No, it's what they might choose to do with it, say when faced with bankruptcy and they want to make a quick buck. I never used or gave out, even to friends, my comcast@home.com address. I always gave out my bigfoot/hotmail/evilemail/etc address, especially for posting to a newsgroup. Yet somehow, for the last three weeks before my @home.com address was migrated over to my @comcast.net address, I received a flood of typical spam crap. I had never before received one piece of spam sent directly to that address.
I feel secure in the knowledge that whoever sold the address list will be in karma deficit for the rest of their.com lives.
Slashdot Mirror
That said, since he's "outgoing" and with a comfortable financial situation, I doubt he much cares. Perhaps in his spare time he can lounge by the pool and read something enlightening.
So does that mean there really is a 10,000 mile long turtle swimming through space with four elephants on its back holding up a flat disc shaped world?
[paraphrased from someone's alt.2600 post. apologies to the poster; I can't remember who it was]
The term Hacker vs. Cracker is just an attempt by a bunch of pompous, self
righteous, tie wearing dorks to separate themselves from the unruly upstarts that
have surfaced in the past 10 years. Hacker isn't a name that solely belongs to
those people who somehow think that they're Marvin Minsky's grandchildren. It's a
name for whatever a person happens to call themselves. I'm sure there's a great
number of professional Axe Murderers who are dismayed that a bunch of computer
nerds are calling themselves 'hackers' too, but you don't see THEM acting all
indignant over it.
gorilla writes:
> The theoretical permissions are one thing, the actual ones used
> in practice are another. As Microsoft Office requires the %WINNT%
> directory to be world writable, that means in practice, the majority
> of NT setups are insecure.
I did not find this to be true on any of the 4 win2k (sp2)boxes I checked. They are all pretty much as configured "out of the box". They may be insecure for other reasons, but this (%WINNT% world writable) does not appear to be the case.
Not necessarily at the point of purchase. I went to Amazon and, sacrificing my consumer profile for the greater good, added the CD to my "cart" (I can't imagine the pablum I'll now be offered through spam). There was no apparent warning displayed on the page for the CD, nor when I went through the motions of almost ordering it (couldn't go that far).
No, it's what they might choose to do with it, say when faced with bankruptcy and they want to make a quick buck. I never used or gave out, even to friends, my comcast@home.com address. I always gave out my bigfoot/hotmail/evilemail/etc address, especially for posting to a newsgroup. Yet somehow, for the last three weeks before my @home.com address was migrated over to my @comcast.net address, I received a flood of typical spam crap. I had never before received one piece of spam sent directly to that address.
I feel secure in the knowledge that whoever sold the address list will be in karma deficit for the rest of their
Just before it's removed because someone chalked up a link to a DeCSS site.
You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself.