Slashdot isn't being written for educational reasons, though. School papers are. If you use "u" instead of "you," then you haven't learned proper grammar -- which school is supposed to teach.
Right, but that's a rare case. I'm just wondering how this works if the attacker has no idea where the file is, what its name is, or any of that. The attacker just knows he wants a file from that computer. Does it work? The article doesn't cover much. It just says, paraphrased:
Attacker sends file.
User edits file, sends back.
Idiot word program attaches other file.
???
Profit?
I wasn't talking about the user who gets exploited... I was more saying the attacker must know what file they want, otherwise, how would they get the file they want? They could exploit a law firm and just get a secretary's grocery list, instead of whatever sensitive thing they wanted.
I'm sure, though I have no evidence to back it up, that there are other companies who have found huge bugs in programs and not fixed the older ones.
Of course, not fixing it for the "most susceptible" (quoting the article) version is kind of asking for negative publicity.
But MS is no stranger to having people not like them, so I doubt they'll suddenly change gears because Word 97 users are brassed off.
This is more or less not as exploitable as some of their other bugs, though. From the article, you have to open and modify the document, then send it back. Not only that, but apparently they have to pick and choose a file, because "When the document is changed and sent back, the file the attacker wants to steal is attached."
So this has nothing on the recent security problems in which simply using a program(Outlook) opens you up to a barrage of exploits.
We're going to hear about RIAA lawsuits against ISPs now. Until the government tells the RIAA to STFU, it won't be settled. That won't happen anytime soon, because, even though it's not fun to admit, people DO pirate music.
You know, I have no idea either, and I visit Slashdot at least twice a day. Can someone explain it for myself and our polite friend here? Links explaining it work, too. Maybe I'm just missing something.
Main Entry: sarcasm
Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
Date: 1550
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm "this is no time to indulge in sarcasm"
Oh, believe me. I question constantly. When Powell mentioned people using condoms(I believe on MTV) and the White House shit themselves, I thought they were crazy.
I question it a lot, but I don't see a few minor stupidities such as condoms as a reason to hate the US citizens. I don't always(hell, I hardly ever) agree with the government on some of the things they say. Why should some French guy I've never met hate me because of what the Chimp in a Suit says? I didn't say it, and I might disagree with him. I might agree. Just because I was born here doesn't mean I should be hated for what Bush, Clinton, the Senate/House, or any other scrotum who is elected says or does.
And no, I'm not anti-Bush or anything - I'd prefer him over Gore, but he does say/do stupid things an awful lot.
So yes - I question them. I'm not fiercely loyal to any party or single person or anything.
I just don't like being hated for what someone I've never met says or does. It infuriates me.
Yeah, it is fucked up when even THEY don't get the story right.
But the Bush administration has instead announced policy changes likely to push them up by 30 percent by 2010, the European Commission said.
Holy fuck! A EUROPEAN COMMISSION said it! IT MUST be true!
That's a fucking Jack Valenti-esque thing to say. How the hell do they know what percent it's going to increase by? Just because Bush isn't applying suction to the Kyoto genitals doesn't mean the US won't do something to stop the pollution.
Just because we're not joining up with the European Union(who keeps making it obvious they fucking hate us) on this, doesn't mean the US doesn't want to slow pollution - people here dislike SUVs and the people who drive them just as much as people in Europe.
But hey, I guess it's ok for them to bitch to us, when they don't bitch to India and China. Do they realize that the fecal matter is about to go splat in their faces when India and China get SUVs?
Go ahead, mod me down. I don't care, I just had to snap over this. The rampant anti-Americanism I've seen over a stupid treaty that until now no real major polluters have signed on for has pissed me off - I don't like pollution either, goddamn it.
That's kind of what I thought when I first heard about this.
"Microsoft...documented basically what Samba already knows...and doesn't want people to...use the documentation for GNU purposes...Ok...what about what they already have? Oh, not affected? Ok."
Looks to me like Microsoft just got these reactions: Loving fanboy support(all three of them), people who could care less(most people), people who went into an idiotic rage(a lot, but not a majority), and people who scratched there heads and asked, "So?"(more than the first, less than the other catagories.)
I mean, basically all they did was brass off some of the geek community and make themselves look, well, dumb. No one really cares about their documentation...do they?
I think unless you put a flashy gui on Linux no 6 yr old is going to want to use it. If anything it will push kids away from computers.
You are wrong. I was around 6, and my school had old green-and-black Apple IIs(I think). Two years later, my dad bought a computer. DOS only.
I had no problem using it. It ran some games, I could type out stuff and print it, and never crashed.
KDE, Gnome, etc are all GUIs. They may not(by default, anyway) be as "flashy" as XP and Mac OS.
Yes, YOU would pay. Not everyone who has a computer, or garbage, can afford to.
Sure you would pay 2-3 times for garbage. What about people making under 30,000 a year?
How about they just take the extremely-ridiculous sales tax from computer sales and apply that to recycling? When I got my current computer, I paid around $140 sales tax.
No, I wouldn't scrounge for parts. And I understand that not everyone keeps old computers.
But, the tax only goes to new computers. So what good does it do for those 16 year old computers that don't work? Nothing.
It creates a situation where the people buying new computers only end up paying for people to throw away old computers.
Plus, part of my point was, does it apply to just parts? I don't really see myself buying a prebuilt computer from Dell, Gateway, or anyone else. Would I be charged a fee for every single part of a computer I was going to build? Say, ten dollars here..five there...another ten for the monitor..that would add up.
As I'm sure a horde of people are going to say: That's not fair.
But, what if you just buy parts? Do they seriously think someone would pay $24-30 for like a $50 set of RAM chips?
And, what if I don't plan on "recycling" my computer? Say in ten years, nothing around will play a game I buy in a week, and I have a computer that plays it? Do they take that money off my computer price if I promise to keep it forever?
Sounds to me like it's just a crock. I can't think of any reason to get rid of a working old computer. If it can run Linux, it could be a firewall or something. If it can run old DOS games(with sound), hell, I'd keep it.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, apparently so is my mind, today. I didn't even notice that until seeing that reply.
Slashdot isn't being written for educational reasons, though. School papers are. If you use "u" instead of "you," then you haven't learned proper grammar -- which school is supposed to teach.
Even better.
Pay someone to buy a new P4, video card, et al. Preferably someone female with little to no inhibitions and a french maid outfit.
Right, but that's a rare case. I'm just wondering how this works if the attacker has no idea where the file is, what its name is, or any of that. The attacker just knows he wants a file from that computer. Does it work? The article doesn't cover much. It just says, paraphrased:
Attacker sends file.
User edits file, sends back.
Idiot word program attaches other file.
???
Profit?
I wasn't talking about the user who gets exploited... I was more saying the attacker must know what file they want, otherwise, how would they get the file they want? They could exploit a law firm and just get a secretary's grocery list, instead of whatever sensitive thing they wanted.
I'm sure, though I have no evidence to back it up, that there are other companies who have found huge bugs in programs and not fixed the older ones.
Of course, not fixing it for the "most susceptible" (quoting the article) version is kind of asking for negative publicity.
But MS is no stranger to having people not like them, so I doubt they'll suddenly change gears because Word 97 users are brassed off.
This is more or less not as exploitable as some of their other bugs, though. From the article, you have to open and modify the document, then send it back. Not only that, but apparently they have to pick and choose a file, because "When the document is changed and sent back, the file the attacker wants to steal is attached."
So this has nothing on the recent security problems in which simply using a program(Outlook) opens you up to a barrage of exploits.
Well, damn. There isn't much else you can say.
We're going to hear about RIAA lawsuits against ISPs now. Until the government tells the RIAA to STFU, it won't be settled. That won't happen anytime soon, because, even though it's not fun to admit, people DO pirate music.
Are you high? How is owning things you create a monopoly?
Everyone can create something. That kind of loses the definition of monopoly right there.
You know, I have no idea either, and I visit Slashdot at least twice a day. Can someone explain it for myself and our polite friend here? Links explaining it work, too. Maybe I'm just missing something.
Wow.
I mean, wow.
Main Entry: sarcasm
Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
Date: 1550
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm "this is no time to indulge in sarcasm"
Oh, believe me. I question constantly. When Powell mentioned people using condoms(I believe on MTV) and the White House shit themselves, I thought they were crazy.
I question it a lot, but I don't see a few minor stupidities such as condoms as a reason to hate the US citizens. I don't always(hell, I hardly ever) agree with the government on some of the things they say. Why should some French guy I've never met hate me because of what the Chimp in a Suit says? I didn't say it, and I might disagree with him. I might agree. Just because I was born here doesn't mean I should be hated for what Bush, Clinton, the Senate/House, or any other scrotum who is elected says or does.
And no, I'm not anti-Bush or anything - I'd prefer him over Gore, but he does say/do stupid things an awful lot.
So yes - I question them. I'm not fiercely loyal to any party or single person or anything.
I just don't like being hated for what someone I've never met says or does. It infuriates me.
Yeah, it is fucked up when even THEY don't get the story right.
But the Bush administration has instead announced policy changes likely to push them up by 30 percent by 2010, the European Commission said.
Holy fuck! A EUROPEAN COMMISSION said it! IT MUST be true!
That's a fucking Jack Valenti-esque thing to say. How the hell do they know what percent it's going to increase by? Just because Bush isn't applying suction to the Kyoto genitals doesn't mean the US won't do something to stop the pollution.
Just because we're not joining up with the European Union(who keeps making it obvious they fucking hate us) on this, doesn't mean the US doesn't want to slow pollution - people here dislike SUVs and the people who drive them just as much as people in Europe.
But hey, I guess it's ok for them to bitch to us, when they don't bitch to India and China. Do they realize that the fecal matter is about to go splat in their faces when India and China get SUVs?
Go ahead, mod me down. I don't care, I just had to snap over this. The rampant anti-Americanism I've seen over a stupid treaty that until now no real major polluters have signed on for has pissed me off - I don't like pollution either, goddamn it.
Uh... I have Simcity, Simcity 2000, and Simcity 3000, and I've managed to build very large cities in all of them without a single tile of roads.
Well, I have no want for anything new Microsoft does. Their current system, which Samba works with, is fine with me.
The more toes Microsoft blows off, the better. (See other poster who replied to my original about them shooting themselves in the feet.
Uh, so it's a non-issue?
That's kind of what I thought when I first heard about this.
"Microsoft...documented basically what Samba already knows...and doesn't want people to...use the documentation for GNU purposes...Ok...what about what they already have? Oh, not affected? Ok."
Looks to me like Microsoft just got these reactions: Loving fanboy support(all three of them), people who could care less(most people), people who went into an idiotic rage(a lot, but not a majority), and people who scratched there heads and asked, "So?"(more than the first, less than the other catagories.)
I mean, basically all they did was brass off some of the geek community and make themselves look, well, dumb. No one really cares about their documentation...do they?
Wrong. He had a point.
He just exaggerated.
I had to format, with Windows 98, five or six times a year. Not slagging anyone. Just stating a fact.
I think unless you put a flashy gui on Linux no 6 yr old is going to want to use it. If anything it will push kids away from computers.
You are wrong. I was around 6, and my school had old green-and-black Apple IIs(I think). Two years later, my dad bought a computer. DOS only.
I had no problem using it. It ran some games, I could type out stuff and print it, and never crashed.
KDE, Gnome, etc are all GUIs. They may not(by default, anyway) be as "flashy" as XP and Mac OS.
He has to be kidding. Took balls to say, too.
On the other hand, the smell of burning Karma may have gotten him high.
Yes, YOU would pay. Not everyone who has a computer, or garbage, can afford to.
Sure you would pay 2-3 times for garbage. What about people making under 30,000 a year?
How about they just take the extremely-ridiculous sales tax from computer sales and apply that to recycling? When I got my current computer, I paid around $140 sales tax.
Because that way it is certain that you do pay for the recycling fee.
What about the computers people have now?
No, I wouldn't scrounge for parts. And I understand that not everyone keeps old computers.
But, the tax only goes to new computers. So what good does it do for those 16 year old computers that don't work? Nothing.
It creates a situation where the people buying new computers only end up paying for people to throw away old computers.
Plus, part of my point was, does it apply to just parts? I don't really see myself buying a prebuilt computer from Dell, Gateway, or anyone else. Would I be charged a fee for every single part of a computer I was going to build? Say, ten dollars here..five there...another ten for the monitor..that would add up.
Maybe you should just have to pay for it when you throw it away.(Not the item - the recycle fee).
I'm all for conservation. But why pay for an item to be thrown away, when you buy it(new)?
As I'm sure a horde of people are going to say: That's not fair.
But, what if you just buy parts? Do they seriously think someone would pay $24-30 for like a $50 set of RAM chips?
And, what if I don't plan on "recycling" my computer? Say in ten years, nothing around will play a game I buy in a week, and I have a computer that plays it? Do they take that money off my computer price if I promise to keep it forever?
Sounds to me like it's just a crock. I can't think of any reason to get rid of a working old computer. If it can run Linux, it could be a firewall or something. If it can run old DOS games(with sound), hell, I'd keep it.
I thought CBDTPA was "Bend over and enjoy the ride."