![nanog logo](/images/nanog-logo.png)
nanog mailing list archives
Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime
From: "Jim Popovitch" <yahoo () jimpop com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:48:06 -0500
On Feb 12, 2008 3:27 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:
Not necessarily - it's unclear they mean "the vuln innately can't be fixed by a mere patch, because it's a social engineering issue", or "the vuln can't be fixed because the vendor has not yet shipped a patch for some reason".
... or the patch application mechanism isn't likely to be successful against sufficiently infected machines. -Jim P.
Current thread:
- IBM report reviews Internet crime michael.dillon (Feb 12)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime Owen DeLong (Feb 12)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime Florian Weimer (Feb 12)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime Owen DeLong (Feb 12)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime Florian Weimer (Feb 13)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime Florian Weimer (Feb 12)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 12)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime Jim Popovitch (Feb 12)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime Andre Gironda (Feb 12)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime JC Dill (Feb 13)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime Andre Gironda (Feb 13)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime Mark Radabaugh (Feb 13)
- RE: IBM report reviews Internet crime Frank Bulk (Feb 14)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime Owen DeLong (Feb 12)
- RE: IBM report reviews Internet crime michael.dillon (Feb 12)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime J. Oquendo (Feb 12)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime Paul Ferguson (Feb 12)