From the text: "Microsoft have noted they intend to roll the fix into SP1 for XP. I informed Microsoft I would be publishing this advisory in mid August during correspondance (late June) and received no objections."
For some reason they only put it into a service pack and didn't want to release a hot-fix. After people got wind of what happened they back dated a hot-fix for it, as described here: http://technet.microsoft.com/library/cc750540.aspx
I'm surprised this has taken as long as it has. I wrote an advisory many years ago about this handler (he references it in his advisory).
I described that it is essentially a way to run elevated script (back then there wasn't even a prompt). All that was required was to find a CSS bug and you have full control. There was heaps of code there could have been a bug in, I didn't actually look through everything. I just found a small CSS bug and left it at that. MS obviously found a lot more as their patch changed plenty of code. Had he dug through the code back when I wrote the initial advisory he wouldn't have even needed the loophole to avoid the prompt.
Adding the prompt is a good move I guess (when it works), but I can't imagine too many users paying any attention to it. The idea that you can arbitrarily open a higher elevated browser that can perform any system operation with user passed parameters seems broken by design rather than just a bug.
Only if they have something worth showing off in the background. Plenty of people write witty remarks on facebook acting cool, while sitting at home in their PJs with their cat. The image you want to portray of yourself on facebook - "this my trip to paris, my night out at a club, when I met the hoff etc" only represent 1% of your daily life. The other 99% of your daily life is pretty "pathetic" for most people and not what they would want their friends to think of them, even though they are just the same.
Perhaps when you have the eiffel tower in the background you might video call your friend, but don't expect them to return the video feed if they are sitting at home with their mum.
in their whitepaper they referenced my 'axfuzz' tool I wrote years ago and even used a modified version of it in their testing. Hope they didn't judge me on that code, it was a pile of crap that I kept hacking together until it finally worked, with no thought to proper software design.
It's not that easy at all. They use virtual machines, encryption, parts of the game resources encoded on invalid sectors on the game disk etc etc. Some of the copyright protections have taken months to crack by experts at machine level debugging, and still haven't been done correctly. The guys writing the games are just good high level language programmers, artists and game-engine-re-users... hardly device driver debugger experts.
Bad company 2, modern warefare and portal are some of the best games I've played. The main reason being I was able to complete them in a reasonable time without the feeling of having wasted my life.
I recommended BC2 to someone recently. I used the argument that I actually bothered to finish it as evidence the game was worth playing.
I don't play multiplayer games at all, I am too old and couldn't be bothered wasting my time only to lose. Spending hours on a game only to lose or without any sense of achievement is pretty depressing.
This is a good point - many people treat a pirated version as a 'demo' they only give 4-5 hrs before moving onto something else until they find something worth dedicating their time.
Most of those requests are for orkurt (about 200). Orkurt is really only big in Brazil... so if you exclude those, the numbers are pretty similar to every other country.
The only reason these "hostile" eyes are looking in this case is because they were able to get the source code, similar to what publishing your source code achieves.
If the only eyes looking other than your own are hostile eyes, that would be an argument *against* publishing your code.
The partial answers need to show up in Google, so that people actually click through. If they had a proper pay-wall, Google wouldn't see the answers either. If they showed different content to the google search indexer, they would be removed from the index. What they are currently doing probably wouldn't be allowed from a smaller site, and they are skating on thin ice, but Google bends the rules for sites that bring in more google adsense revenue.
Most likely their backup plan is to sue. They had their lawyers go over the EULA with a fine tooth comb (Opera mentions this) and they seem to think there is no problem. Opera mini renders on the server side, not client side, thus not competing with the current browser, apparently.
If Apple rejects it, Opera lawyers up (see Microsoft and the EU with regards to Opera). They may even require Apple to give iPhone users a 'browser ballot' - Opera may even be hoping they reject it.
Well, they are linking to the "downloads" section (check out the downloads section, its the same url). It makes sense that the "downloads" should be serving stuff up as downloaded rather than embedded content.
Dead heat? IE9 is sitting at about 600, FF is at about 750. The bars for IE8 and Opera 10.10 are throwing off the scale of the graph. If it only showed the top 8 or so browsers, and a graph from 0 - 1000, the difference would look pretty big.
Bad analogy. If you don't consume the goods from the mini-bar, they can be sold to someone else. It's a tangible good. It's like a door to door salesman coming to your door offering to sell you little chocolates. If you don't take them for free he has goods that he can sell to someone else. The hotel has just effectively put a mini-shop in your room for your convenience. It is not as though the price of all the mini-bar goods is already included on your room rental.
When you buy a game DVD however, you are arguably paying for what's on the disk. The important point is that the price has been set based on the development and marketing of the data on the disk *including the data which you aren't allowed to access*. The fact they can then go and ask you to pay more for what's already been paid for is pretty rude.
1. Go to 4chan/b and post a unique sentence. 2. Observe how quickly stuff gets posted to that site. 3. Search for that sentence through Google 4. Be amazed that Google actually indexes this site.
Slashdot Mirror
I had a similar experience reporting this advisory years ago about this same hcp protocol: http://seclists.org/bugtraq/2002/Aug/225
From the text: "Microsoft have noted they intend to roll the fix into SP1 for XP. I informed
Microsoft I would be publishing this advisory in mid August during
correspondance (late June) and received no objections."
For some reason they only put it into a service pack and didn't want to release a hot-fix. After people got wind of what happened they back dated a hot-fix for it, as described here: http://technet.microsoft.com/library/cc750540.aspx
I'm surprised this has taken as long as it has. I wrote an advisory many years ago about this handler (he references it in his advisory).
I described that it is essentially a way to run elevated script (back then there wasn't even a prompt). All that was required was to find a CSS bug and you have full control. There was heaps of code there could have been a bug in, I didn't actually look through everything. I just found a small CSS bug and left it at that. MS obviously found a lot more as their patch changed plenty of code. Had he dug through the code back when I wrote the initial advisory he wouldn't have even needed the loophole to avoid the prompt.
Adding the prompt is a good move I guess (when it works), but I can't imagine too many users paying any attention to it. The idea that you can arbitrarily open a higher elevated browser that can perform any system operation with user passed parameters seems broken by design rather than just a bug.
Only if they have something worth showing off in the background. Plenty of people write witty remarks on facebook acting cool, while sitting at home in their PJs with their cat. The image you want to portray of yourself on facebook - "this my trip to paris, my night out at a club, when I met the hoff etc" only represent 1% of your daily life. The other 99% of your daily life is pretty "pathetic" for most people and not what they would want their friends to think of them, even though they are just the same.
Perhaps when you have the eiffel tower in the background you might video call your friend, but don't expect them to return the video feed if they are sitting at home with their mum.
I see Dranzer is an older ActiveX fuzzing tool, somewhat unrelated to the "BFF". I didn't really read the article properly. :P
I was just referring to this technical document: http://www.cert.org/archive/pdf/dranzer.pdf [pdf]
referenced from: http://threatpost.com/archive/blogs/dranzer-fuzzing-activex-vulnerabilities which is linked to from TFA.
in their whitepaper they referenced my 'axfuzz' tool I wrote years ago and even used a modified version of it in their testing. Hope they didn't judge me on that code, it was a pile of crap that I kept hacking together until it finally worked, with no thought to proper software design.
Keeping in mind a Xbox or PS3 is effectively a computer, plus attaching a laptop for playing a movie, 90% sounds pretty reasonable.
It's not that easy at all. They use virtual machines, encryption, parts of the game resources encoded on invalid sectors on the game disk etc etc. Some of the copyright protections have taken months to crack by experts at machine level debugging, and still haven't been done correctly. The guys writing the games are just good high level language programmers, artists and game-engine-re-users... hardly device driver debugger experts.
Bad company 2, modern warefare and portal are some of the best games I've played. The main reason being I was able to complete them in a reasonable time without the feeling of having wasted my life.
I recommended BC2 to someone recently. I used the argument that I actually bothered to finish it as evidence the game was worth playing.
I don't play multiplayer games at all, I am too old and couldn't be bothered wasting my time only to lose. Spending hours on a game only to lose or without any sense of achievement is pretty depressing.
This is a good point - many people treat a pirated version as a 'demo' they only give 4-5 hrs before moving onto something else until they find something worth dedicating their time.
Most of those requests are for orkurt (about 200). Orkurt is really only big in Brazil... so if you exclude those, the numbers are pretty similar to every other country.
Another example?
The only reason these "hostile" eyes are looking in this case is because they were able to get the source code, similar to what publishing your source code achieves.
If the only eyes looking other than your own are hostile eyes, that would be an argument *against* publishing your code.
The partial answers need to show up in Google, so that people actually click through. If they had a proper pay-wall, Google wouldn't see the answers either. If they showed different content to the google search indexer, they would be removed from the index. What they are currently doing probably wouldn't be allowed from a smaller site, and they are skating on thin ice, but Google bends the rules for sites that bring in more google adsense revenue.
Most likely their backup plan is to sue. They had their lawyers go over the EULA with a fine tooth comb (Opera mentions this) and they seem to think there is no problem. Opera mini renders on the server side, not client side, thus not competing with the current browser, apparently.
If Apple rejects it, Opera lawyers up (see Microsoft and the EU with regards to Opera). They may even require Apple to give iPhone users a 'browser ballot' - Opera may even be hoping they reject it.
Well, they are linking to the "downloads" section (check out the downloads section, its the same url). It makes sense that the "downloads" should be serving stuff up as downloaded rather than embedded content.
There's a far better resource here anyway:
http://wigle.net/gps/gps/main/ssidstats
1967466 9.481%
linksys 1767274 8.516%
default 543979 2.621%
NETGEAR 499542 2.407%
Belkin54g 230670 1.111%
no_ssid 215863 1.040%
Wireless 201520 0.971%
hpsetup 154749 0.745%
WLAN 99567 0.479%
DLINK 85869 0.413%
ACTIONTEC 82937 0.399%
home 80043 0.385%
70417 0.339%
Free Public WiFi 56769 0.273%
http://wigle.net/gps/gps/Map/onlinemap2/
Combine it with a GPS and join the thousands of people already doing this and contribute to this site.
Why do only "runaway slaves" make this mistake? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maroon_(people)
Indeed, this is very old news, it's been done many times before. I recall reading and applying this article for Windows many years ago:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc301696.aspx
there's also: http://www.ntcore.com/files/SmallAppWiz.htm and http://www.phreedom.org/solar/code/tinype/ (again for windows) and many more.
Dead heat? IE9 is sitting at about 600, FF is at about 750. The bars for IE8 and Opera 10.10 are throwing off the scale of the graph. If it only showed the top 8 or so browsers, and a graph from 0 - 1000, the difference would look pretty big.
Bad analogy. If you don't consume the goods from the mini-bar, they can be sold to someone else. It's a tangible good. It's like a door to door salesman coming to your door offering to sell you little chocolates. If you don't take them for free he has goods that he can sell to someone else. The hotel has just effectively put a mini-shop in your room for your convenience. It is not as though the price of all the mini-bar goods is already included on your room rental.
When you buy a game DVD however, you are arguably paying for what's on the disk. The important point is that the price has been set based on the development and marketing of the data on the disk *including the data which you aren't allowed to access*. The fact they can then go and ask you to pay more for what's already been paid for is pretty rude.
FYI, a google maps link to the location:
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=37.769573+-122.483123&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=16
time and date: 2010-06-26 14:28:57
As we all know, the Internet is serious business.
http://drunkenachura.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/internet-serious-business.jpg
I don't know if you ripped that off elsewhere, but it's pretty good.
1. Go to 4chan/b and post a unique sentence.
2. Observe how quickly stuff gets posted to that site.
3. Search for that sentence through Google
4. Be amazed that Google actually indexes this site.