That is probably why he said on his site that he was aware that screenshots don't prove anything, and posted directory listings, etc. He also provides instructions, so feel free to try it yourself if you doubt it.
Why not just go to them and tell them you have found a couple of very serious exploits, and refuse to tell them what they are until you have determined whether or not they will try to prosecute/disipline, whatever. They surely can't do anything to you if they have no proof that you really have done anything.
Actually, I have reported bugs to Admins of MSN Chat without a problem, as well as to a large regional ISP (Which I was doing tech support for at the time). In both situations, I was used as a resource, and I continue to confer with them on security issues occasionally.
Problem is, a couple of vital systems in things such as missiles could not be "insulated" with those tiles. I don't imagine those would get along all that well with Radar or IR Sensors, which are vital parts of a missile. As for Artillery, simply protecting the HE is not going to cut it, since the integrity of the shell's surface has a huge impact on it's aerodynamics.
There are certain situations where things do not need to change, and are best left unchanged. Older software running on newer Hardware runs Much faster than the newer software on the same system... Why? Because of all of the things they have added to make it LOOK better... If the old software still does the job, and just as well, Why replace it? In my early days experimenting with programming, I wrote a small Modem terminal program in QB. After I got into VB3, I wrote a program of the same type. They did basically the same thing, but the VB one was a memory hog, and the exe was much larger... Why? Because you could point and click on stylish buttons and widgets... Is it worth it?
The problem is where you have truly customer software, like a Calltracking System meant to track and store a database of Tech support calls that is tailored to what the company needs, or the software that reads sensors on Boilers, Generators, and Turbines at a power plant. These things are obviously going to be Specific to the facility and/or company, and are impossible to replace with "free" software that is readily available.
That's all fine for Mac Users, but while I really don't have anything personally against the Mac, the hardware diversity is close to nill. This is good in a way, but bad in more ways...
"UPDATE: As of September 6, 2002, the reports of hacking activity following the pattern indicated below have diminished significantly. The Product Support Services Security Team has modified the alert and its associated Knowledge Base article to reflect this information and to refine detection and repair criteria."
This was posted at the top of the article that was pointed out in that post (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q328691)
It looks like they decided to change the contect rather than have it so widely read...
Slashdot Mirror
That is probably why he said on his site that he was aware that screenshots don't prove anything, and posted directory listings, etc. He also provides instructions, so feel free to try it yourself if you doubt it.
Why not just go to them and tell them you have found a couple of very serious exploits, and refuse to tell them what they are until you have determined whether or not they will try to prosecute/disipline, whatever. They surely can't do anything to you if they have no proof that you really have done anything. Actually, I have reported bugs to Admins of MSN Chat without a problem, as well as to a large regional ISP (Which I was doing tech support for at the time). In both situations, I was used as a resource, and I continue to confer with them on security issues occasionally.
Problem is, a couple of vital systems in things such as missiles could not be "insulated" with those tiles. I don't imagine those would get along all that well with Radar or IR Sensors, which are vital parts of a missile. As for Artillery, simply protecting the HE is not going to cut it, since the integrity of the shell's surface has a huge impact on it's aerodynamics.
This is the case with any projectile weapon, also. In fact, It could be even easier to avoid problems, since the beam travels at the speed of light...
There are certain situations where things do not need to change, and are best left unchanged. Older software running on newer Hardware runs Much faster than the newer software on the same system... Why? Because of all of the things they have added to make it LOOK better... If the old software still does the job, and just as well, Why replace it? In my early days experimenting with programming, I wrote a small Modem terminal program in QB. After I got into VB3, I wrote a program of the same type. They did basically the same thing, but the VB one was a memory hog, and the exe was much larger... Why? Because you could point and click on stylish buttons and widgets... Is it worth it?
The problem is where you have truly customer software, like a Calltracking System meant to track and store a database of Tech support calls that is tailored to what the company needs, or the software that reads sensors on Boilers, Generators, and Turbines at a power plant. These things are obviously going to be Specific to the facility and/or company, and are impossible to replace with "free" software that is readily available.
That's all fine for Mac Users, but while I really don't have anything personally against the Mac, the hardware diversity is close to nill. This is good in a way, but bad in more ways...
"Windows emulation even better than Windows: http://www.winehq.com/ ."
Wine Is Not an Emulator.... Just thought I'd bring that up....
"UPDATE: As of September 6, 2002, the reports of hacking activity following the pattern indicated below have diminished significantly. The Product Support Services Security Team has modified the alert and its associated Knowledge Base article to reflect this information and to refine detection and repair criteria." This was posted at the top of the article that was pointed out in that post (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb ;en-us;Q328691)
It looks like they decided to change the contect rather than have it so widely read...