For the sake of those who will only read up to the quoted line:
It did have a TCP/IP implementation though. It just didnt do netbios over it.
This is correct; and BadTunnel is initiated via an exploit in NetBIOS over IPX/SPX and relies on one of two additional services for which WFW had no support.
At worst, it could have been exploited by a system on the same LAN, as IPX/SPX was very frame-size and frame-order dependent, rendering it effectively useless as a WAN protocol.
Additionally, read up on how the vulnerability functions. I had to read up on it a bit more than I already had in order to write this reply, but here's a summary: The attack involved convincing a Windows machine, via a flaw in NetBIOS over TCP/IP, that the attacking machine is a valid WPAD or ISATAP server. ISATAP is an IPv6 transition mechanism so we can rule that out as a WFW attack vector. WPAD hadn't been created by Netscap yet in 1993 when WFW was released (it was developed in 1996 as part of Netscape Navigator 2.0), so that's ruled out as well.
However, it appears that WFW gained NetBIOS support via NWNBLink, which provided support for NetBIOS over IPX/SPX, rather than ICP/IP. That is, it would not have been vulnerable to BadTunnel.
Obesity isn't the concern with sugar, though most people seem to think it is. Sugar, be it fructose, sucrose, or glucose in thigh enough levels, is processed in your liver the same way as alcohol and leads to the same liver damage if consumed in excess. Further, most regions of the world concerned with starvation have less access to sugar-loaded processed and shelf-stable foods and, thus, are at lower risk of obesity even if they suddenly had record harvests resulting in plentiful food for all.
Don't get me wrong, I love me some sugar; I'm just not disillusioned about what I'm doing to my body when I eat it.
On one hand, I think this whole thing is overblown. On the other hand, playing devil's advocate, the TLAs can't access a machine that is powered down; this potentially allows them to turn it on remotely.
"proof" that there are a lot of false rape accusations going on
You keep saying "proof" and I keep pointing out that I intended to "prove" nothing. You keep saying "a lot" and I keep pointing out that it doesn't take "a lot" for it to be a problem. Why do you keep making these false statements of my claims? Sure, you can tear them down much more easily than what I'm actually claiming, but you're not tearing down my claims when you do that, you're tearing down your own strawman, which you keep rebuilding, over and over. Why?
Do you mean you really didn't expect a bit of disbelief, disgust, and sheer wonder that you had the audacity to go so far as to suggest such things were equivalent to the very serious crimes being discussed?
A false accusation is a false accusation. Slander is a very serious crime, and the false report filed by one woman is, in fact, the very serious crime that was being discussed. The false harassment accusation, which also saw police involvement, is actually the exact same very serious crime. Rape is a very serious crime, as well, especially when the victim was drugged and even moreso when the victim was a minor. Additionally, domestic abuse is a very serious crime. All of these were discussed directly in the post I replied to.
Your action of calling me a rapist just because I annoyed you shows how little you take such things seriously.
I never called you a rapist, I said you might be one; huge difference. Anyone, literally anyone, with sex organs and control over their own actions might be a rapist. The fact that you keep minimizing the actual rape and abuse I experienced and place such a high bar on what actually constitutes rape and accusations thereof all add up to indicators of thought patterns which tend to lead to such behavior. That's what I have to go on, so I don't think it an unreasonable conclusion to draw that you might be a rapist.
It's more than just a little sickening.
Step back and look at your behavior. Yes, it is.
This "mens rights" shit is like Afganistan at home.
Here you go with that shit again. What "men's rights" shit? How many fucking times to I have to tell you? Well... I'm not repeating it again, you can read through our conversation yourself to find it. Jackass.
Which changed everything, such as you being a financial support for one person.
How does my being financial support for someone I'm not sleeping with have any bearing on whether or not it's acceptable for her to tell my friends, family, and employer I raped her when I did nothing of the sort? It changes nothing.
Even your "victim card" turned out to be about drunken misadventures only classed as a crime due to a higher age of consent than in a lot of other places.
Incorrect. When I said "I drank the Kool-Aid (literally) she made" that's exactly what I meant. We were babysitting my dad's GF's kids at the time, there was no alcohol involved. They had gone to bed by then so, thankfully, they weren't involved, but neither was alcohol, as there was none in the house. She drugged me, as I said, but you go right ahead and believe otherwise, jackass.
My story, in fact, did not change. I added details which, for brevity, were left out of the original post, and I corrected a detail I misremembered about an event that occurred 13 years ago; but the story itself did not change. We've been over this already, why are we coming back to it?
Or, Apple, realizing that thee strength of their platform is in the apps provided by third-party developers, should do everything in their power to build goodwill with those developers and avoid screwing them over, as in this case. It doesn't take many instances of this before developers begin to view your platform as toxic.
Those screens also reacted to finger input. The stylus was provided for increased writing accuracy and to prevent fingerprinting the fuck out of the screen. What was different about Apple's touch screen is that it was capacitive, like your laptop's touchpad, rather than resistive, enabling it to track multiple touch points at once (but preventing it from tracking non-conductive objects such as a pointy plastic stylus). An Apple's iPhone wasn't even the first to apply multi-touch to a display; that distinction goes to Mitsubishi.
Once again you avoided the question: "If your "enhanced" story and the victim card to try to force it through without criticism was not to support the "they are all crying wolf" agenda then what was it for?"
Actually, no, the question was:
Why else would you continue to communicate with me for so long instead of just letting it slide as a difference of opinion?
A question, mind you, that I had directly answered in my prior post.
Trying to get me to write about my career by calling my ability in it into question is a bit of a slimy evasion.
I wasn't trying to get you to write about your career, I was pointing out that an engineer (your claim, in this very conversation, not mine) should know how to read and comprehend. You, sir, seem to have trouble doing those two things.
So what were you doing?
I'll assume that, this time, you mean to refer to my original post. I've answered that already; surely, as you're an intelligent guy who knows how to read an comprehend, you're asking only because you are unsatisfied with my answer, to which I can only say: tough shit; my answer is my answer, you an ask every day for the rest of your natural life and it isn't going to change.
I've got no idea how many times I've asked that but you keep on evading the question.
Oh? So you're actually asking because you haven't seen or comprehended my answer by now? Got it. Well, let me recap:
Let's start with this one, in response to your third post in this conversation, before you even asked what my purpose was:
My regaling wasn't for you in the first place; it was in support of others who've been through shit similar to what I've been through, whether male, female, or other.
I clarified my point here, in response to your fifth post, again before you asked:
The fact is, rape, sexual assault and harassment, domestic violence, and false accusations of any of those are all bad things, regardless who they happen to. And they all happen to both genders.
In response to your 11th post where, by the way, you've still not asked the intent of my original post. Still relying on your false assumption of my intent:
speaking truthfully and from the heart about shit people would rather didn't happen
To your 14th post, where you're still assuming incorrectly and have not yet asked the question I supposedly keep evading:
I merely pointed out that (as in my case) false accusations do happen.
In response toyour 18th post, wherein you have still not asked this oh so evaded question:
I simply posted an account of events, in support of a fellow Slashdotter's comment.
In response to your 20th post, by which point I'm still not seeing your question; defending the relevance of my first post:
The factual account I wrote in response to a post about false reports, things generally going unreported, and men being assaulted, you mean?
In response to your 24th post wherein you finally asked the quetion!! By which time, of course, I've already answered it no fewer than four times and clarified the relevance of that post at least once. Yes, I corrected a typo in this quote; it's been marked os you and the rest of the world can see that I'm not hiding it:
Simply trying to relay [my] experience. There has been no whining and I assure you nothing has been jazzed up. I wish your statements here were true, but I did experience what I claim.
In response to your 26th post:
I never intended to prove, only to support.
Another clarification, in response to your 27th post:
I'll remind you, I'm merely defending myself, not trying to convince you
You mustn't be a very good engineer with low enough intelligence to actually have to ask why I would continue communicating with you in the face of your attacks and accusations, when I've literally just told you.
Still not whining, actually. You must be hearing yourself.
Have you learned something from this tedious exercise about putting up fake "proof" to defend rapists?I
Eh, perhaps if that's what I was doing, I'd have learned something about it. So, short answer: no.
Have you learned anything about putting words in people's mouths, reading too much into things, and accusing someone who, himself, as been raped of defending rapists?
Really? That's what your argument amounts to? I haven't managed to convince you? I'll remind you, I'm merely defending myself, not trying to convince you; and you're the one playing word games, twisting the definition of "accusation" to whatever fits the agenda you're pushing. Yes, you, sir, are the one pushing an agenda here.
When the fuck did I ever say there are not many rapists, or that lots of women cry wolf? I never did, those are your bitter words stuffed into my mouth and you get indignant when I spit them back in your face.
You seem to be living in a world where people have no friends or relatives who might report their disappearance. While this might describe you, I can assure you it does not describe the majority; though, having no ties to anyone who might report you missing is cause for investigation. Again, though, how would I know this? Think.
You do know that a bear trap may hurt you if you put part of your body into it, right? Or does knowing that stop it from working? I mean, sure, it might stop you from purposely putting yourself in that position, but does it stop the trap if you end up in it anyway?
No, there are exceptions to that as well. Take 1+1, for example. Now, that could be 1.6 + 1.7, which would be 3.3, making 1+1=3, an exception to the 1+1=2 rule caused by ignoring the decimal portion of a number. However, when you state the rule as "1.0 + 1.0 = 2", you find that there are, in fact, no exceptions. Even if you add 1.09 + 1.09, you end up with 2.18, which is still 2.
Yes, I'm taking a great many liberties. It's satire, I'm allowed to.
The strawman was adding the requirements that they be conclusively caught doing so and that someone be publicly arrested
If it never leads to an arrest or any other consequence, who gives a fuck? I should say the real strwaman is that it matters at all if nothing ever comes of it. If not that, then that law enforcement agencies, most of which operate on tight budgets, would take this data, which brings with it a very real cost for acquisition, storage, analysis, and verification, and do nothing with it. In short, if this was happening, we'd know by now.
But given that we are talking about the company that bought Skype for it's perception of security and then re-engineered Skype for the sole purpose of making it possible to wiretap, a set of actions that serves no purpose but to dismantle a secure communications platform for the benefit of authorities
Two words: targeted advertising. There's your other purpose.
Suggesting otherwise is akin to suggesting your local PD doesn't share any data with the FBI
Logical fallacy. And, unlike you, I'm going to support my claim as I'm making it. You see, it is expected that law enforcement agencies share data, so one would be silly to suggest that they don't. That said, I have friends and family in law enforcement, at every level from small town cops and county Sheriffs, up to some of the TLAs you really seem to be worried about and the biggest complaint I hear is how difficult it is to not only get information from other agencies, but also to share information with other agencies. It's a common problem, across the board, and for damn good reason. Unless an investigation is already underway between two agencies and those agencies join forces to complete a joint investigation (after agreeing on who gets credit for it, of course), no agency is willing to trust another agency's data; a botched conviction looks bad even if it's based on someone else's bad data. But hey, how would I possibly know any of this? I'm sure my friends and family are just lying to me so I don't catch on that they all know what I did last summer.
First of all, I never claimed you actually did those things, only that you possibly could have. Even if I had said you actually did those things, according to you, there still would have been no accusation. After all, I didn't go to the police. Hell, I didn't even go to your friends, family, and employer like two of my accusers did to me. Are you now conceding that a face to face accusation of something does, in fact, constitute an accusation?
Furthermore, you're the one calling my accounts "proof".Not only have I never called them "proof", I've actually stared that they're not proof of anything. Hell, they're not even proof these things actually hallened! These things did actually happen, but the proof lies elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
BadTunnel is initiated via an exploit in NetBIOS over TCP/IP
Proofread.
Every.
Post.
It did have a TCP/IP implementation though. It just didnt do netbios over it.
This is correct; and BadTunnel is initiated via an exploit in NetBIOS over IPX/SPX and relies on one of two additional services for which WFW had no support.
At worst, it could have been exploited by a system on the same LAN, as IPX/SPX was very frame-size and frame-order dependent, rendering it effectively useless as a WAN protocol.
Additionally, read up on how the vulnerability functions. I had to read up on it a bit more than I already had in order to write this reply, but here's a summary: The attack involved convincing a Windows machine, via a flaw in NetBIOS over TCP/IP, that the attacking machine is a valid WPAD or ISATAP server. ISATAP is an IPv6 transition mechanism so we can rule that out as a WFW attack vector. WPAD hadn't been created by Netscap yet in 1993 when WFW was released (it was developed in 1996 as part of Netscape Navigator 2.0), so that's ruled out as well.
Looks like WFW was safe.
Ah, I stand corrected, as I forgot about WFW.
However, it appears that WFW gained NetBIOS support via NWNBLink, which provided support for NetBIOS over IPX/SPX, rather than ICP/IP. That is, it would not have been vulnerable to BadTunnel.
More reliable sources say 95 and on, which makes sense as prior versions didn't ship with a network stack.
Obesity isn't the concern with sugar, though most people seem to think it is. Sugar, be it fructose, sucrose, or glucose in thigh enough levels, is processed in your liver the same way as alcohol and leads to the same liver damage if consumed in excess. Further, most regions of the world concerned with starvation have less access to sugar-loaded processed and shelf-stable foods and, thus, are at lower risk of obesity even if they suddenly had record harvests resulting in plentiful food for all.
Don't get me wrong, I love me some sugar; I'm just not disillusioned about what I'm doing to my body when I eat it.
Yes, that explains why people love sugar so much...
This guy gets it.
This whole story is about as non-story as it gets.
On one hand, I think this whole thing is overblown. On the other hand, playing devil's advocate, the TLAs can't access a machine that is powered down; this potentially allows them to turn it on remotely.
"proof" that there are a lot of false rape accusations going on
You keep saying "proof" and I keep pointing out that I intended to "prove" nothing. You keep saying "a lot" and I keep pointing out that it doesn't take "a lot" for it to be a problem. Why do you keep making these false statements of my claims? Sure, you can tear them down much more easily than what I'm actually claiming, but you're not tearing down my claims when you do that, you're tearing down your own strawman, which you keep rebuilding, over and over. Why?
Do you mean you really didn't expect a bit of disbelief, disgust, and sheer wonder that you had the audacity to go so far as to suggest such things were equivalent to the very serious crimes being discussed?
A false accusation is a false accusation. Slander is a very serious crime, and the false report filed by one woman is, in fact, the very serious crime that was being discussed. The false harassment accusation, which also saw police involvement, is actually the exact same very serious crime. Rape is a very serious crime, as well, especially when the victim was drugged and even moreso when the victim was a minor. Additionally, domestic abuse is a very serious crime. All of these were discussed directly in the post I replied to.
Your action of calling me a rapist just because I annoyed you shows how little you take such things seriously.
I never called you a rapist, I said you might be one; huge difference. Anyone, literally anyone, with sex organs and control over their own actions might be a rapist. The fact that you keep minimizing the actual rape and abuse I experienced and place such a high bar on what actually constitutes rape and accusations thereof all add up to indicators of thought patterns which tend to lead to such behavior. That's what I have to go on, so I don't think it an unreasonable conclusion to draw that you might be a rapist.
It's more than just a little sickening.
Step back and look at your behavior. Yes, it is.
This "mens rights" shit is like Afganistan at home.
Here you go with that shit again. What "men's rights" shit? How many fucking times to I have to tell you? Well... I'm not repeating it again, you can read through our conversation yourself to find it. Jackass.
Which changed everything, such as you being a financial support for one person.
How does my being financial support for someone I'm not sleeping with have any bearing on whether or not it's acceptable for her to tell my friends, family, and employer I raped her when I did nothing of the sort? It changes nothing.
Even your "victim card" turned out to be about drunken misadventures only classed as a crime due to a higher age of consent than in a lot of other places.
Incorrect. When I said "I drank the Kool-Aid (literally) she made" that's exactly what I meant. We were babysitting my dad's GF's kids at the time, there was no alcohol involved. They had gone to bed by then so, thankfully, they weren't involved, but neither was alcohol, as there was none in the house. She drugged me, as I said, but you go right ahead and believe otherwise, jackass.
My story, in fact, did not change. I added details which, for brevity, were left out of the original post, and I corrected a detail I misremembered about an event that occurred 13 years ago; but the story itself did not change. We've been over this already, why are we coming back to it?
Or, Apple, realizing that thee strength of their platform is in the apps provided by third-party developers, should do everything in their power to build goodwill with those developers and avoid screwing them over, as in this case. It doesn't take many instances of this before developers begin to view your platform as toxic.
Those screens also reacted to finger input. The stylus was provided for increased writing accuracy and to prevent fingerprinting the fuck out of the screen. What was different about Apple's touch screen is that it was capacitive, like your laptop's touchpad, rather than resistive, enabling it to track multiple touch points at once (but preventing it from tracking non-conductive objects such as a pointy plastic stylus). An Apple's iPhone wasn't even the first to apply multi-touch to a display; that distinction goes to Mitsubishi.
Once again you avoided the question: "If your "enhanced" story and the victim card to try to force it through without criticism was not to support the "they are all crying wolf" agenda then what was it for?"
Actually, no, the question was:
Why else would you continue to communicate with me for so long instead of just letting it slide as a difference of opinion?
A question, mind you, that I had directly answered in my prior post.
Trying to get me to write about my career by calling my ability in it into question is a bit of a slimy evasion.
I wasn't trying to get you to write about your career, I was pointing out that an engineer (your claim, in this very conversation, not mine) should know how to read and comprehend. You, sir, seem to have trouble doing those two things.
So what were you doing?
I'll assume that, this time, you mean to refer to my original post. I've answered that already; surely, as you're an intelligent guy who knows how to read an comprehend, you're asking only because you are unsatisfied with my answer, to which I can only say: tough shit; my answer is my answer, you an ask every day for the rest of your natural life and it isn't going to change.
I've got no idea how many times I've asked that but you keep on evading the question.
Oh? So you're actually asking because you haven't seen or comprehended my answer by now? Got it. Well, let me recap:
Let's start with this one, in response to your third post in this conversation, before you even asked what my purpose was:
My regaling wasn't for you in the first place; it was in support of others who've been through shit similar to what I've been through, whether male, female, or other.
I clarified my point here, in response to your fifth post, again before you asked:
The fact is, rape, sexual assault and harassment, domestic violence, and false accusations of any of those are all bad things, regardless who they happen to. And they all happen to both genders.
In response to your 11th post where, by the way, you've still not asked the intent of my original post. Still relying on your false assumption of my intent:
speaking truthfully and from the heart about shit people would rather didn't happen
To your 14th post, where you're still assuming incorrectly and have not yet asked the question I supposedly keep evading:
I merely pointed out that (as in my case) false accusations do happen.
In response toyour 18th post, wherein you have still not asked this oh so evaded question:
I simply posted an account of events, in support of a fellow Slashdotter's comment.
In response to your 20th post, by which point I'm still not seeing your question; defending the relevance of my first post:
The factual account I wrote in response to a post about false reports, things generally going unreported, and men being assaulted, you mean?
In response to your 24th post wherein you finally asked the quetion!! By which time, of course, I've already answered it no fewer than four times and clarified the relevance of that post at least once. Yes, I corrected a typo in this quote; it's been marked os you and the rest of the world can see that I'm not hiding it:
Simply trying to relay [my] experience. There has been no whining and I assure you nothing has been jazzed up. I wish your statements here were true, but I did experience what I claim.
In response to your 26th post:
I never intended to prove, only to support.
Another clarification, in response to your 27th post:
Attempted doxxing? WTF, mate? Are you high?
I'll remind you, I'm merely defending myself, not trying to convince you
You mustn't be a very good engineer with low enough intelligence to actually have to ask why I would continue communicating with you in the face of your attacks and accusations, when I've literally just told you.
Still whining?
Still not whining, actually. You must be hearing yourself.
Have you learned something from this tedious exercise about putting up fake "proof" to defend rapists?I
Eh, perhaps if that's what I was doing, I'd have learned something about it. So, short answer: no.
Have you learned anything about putting words in people's mouths, reading too much into things, and accusing someone who, himself, as been raped of defending rapists?
Really? That's what your argument amounts to? I haven't managed to convince you? I'll remind you, I'm merely defending myself, not trying to convince you; and you're the one playing word games, twisting the definition of "accusation" to whatever fits the agenda you're pushing. Yes, you, sir, are the one pushing an agenda here.
When the fuck did I ever say there are not many rapists, or that lots of women cry wolf? I never did, those are your bitter words stuffed into my mouth and you get indignant when I spit them back in your face.
Good thing, then, that I'm truncating the display and not the computation. Proof: find two values of 1.0 that add up to 3.
You seem to be living in a world where people have no friends or relatives who might report their disappearance. While this might describe you, I can assure you it does not describe the majority; though, having no ties to anyone who might report you missing is cause for investigation. Again, though, how would I know this? Think.
You do know that a bear trap may hurt you if you put part of your body into it, right? Or does knowing that stop it from working? I mean, sure, it might stop you from purposely putting yourself in that position, but does it stop the trap if you end up in it anyway?
except to the always exceptions rule
No, there are exceptions to that as well. Take 1+1, for example. Now, that could be 1.6 + 1.7, which would be 3.3, making 1+1=3, an exception to the 1+1=2 rule caused by ignoring the decimal portion of a number. However, when you state the rule as "1.0 + 1.0 = 2", you find that there are, in fact, no exceptions. Even if you add 1.09 + 1.09, you end up with 2.18, which is still 2.
Yes, I'm taking a great many liberties. It's satire, I'm allowed to.
The strawman was adding the requirements that they be conclusively caught doing so and that someone be publicly arrested
If it never leads to an arrest or any other consequence, who gives a fuck? I should say the real strwaman is that it matters at all if nothing ever comes of it. If not that, then that law enforcement agencies, most of which operate on tight budgets, would take this data, which brings with it a very real cost for acquisition, storage, analysis, and verification, and do nothing with it. In short, if this was happening, we'd know by now.
But given that we are talking about the company that bought Skype for it's perception of security and then re-engineered Skype for the sole purpose of making it possible to wiretap, a set of actions that serves no purpose but to dismantle a secure communications platform for the benefit of authorities
Two words: targeted advertising. There's your other purpose.
Suggesting otherwise is akin to suggesting your local PD doesn't share any data with the FBI
Logical fallacy. And, unlike you, I'm going to support my claim as I'm making it. You see, it is expected that law enforcement agencies share data, so one would be silly to suggest that they don't. That said, I have friends and family in law enforcement, at every level from small town cops and county Sheriffs, up to some of the TLAs you really seem to be worried about and the biggest complaint I hear is how difficult it is to not only get information from other agencies, but also to share information with other agencies. It's a common problem, across the board, and for damn good reason. Unless an investigation is already underway between two agencies and those agencies join forces to complete a joint investigation (after agreeing on who gets credit for it, of course), no agency is willing to trust another agency's data; a botched conviction looks bad even if it's based on someone else's bad data. But hey, how would I possibly know any of this? I'm sure my friends and family are just lying to me so I don't catch on that they all know what I did last summer.
First of all, I never claimed you actually did those things, only that you possibly could have. Even if I had said you actually did those things, according to you, there still would have been no accusation. After all, I didn't go to the police. Hell, I didn't even go to your friends, family, and employer like two of my accusers did to me. Are you now conceding that a face to face accusation of something does, in fact, constitute an accusation?
Furthermore, you're the one calling my accounts "proof".Not only have I never called them "proof", I've actually stared that they're not proof of anything. Hell, they're not even proof these things actually hallened! These things did actually happen, but the proof lies elsewhere.