Re: Re: MS not telling enough

[tuytumadre () att net]

I respect your right to have an opinion, however I do not respect the fact that your opinion completely sucks ass. I 
meen seriously man, when has MS really become that bad? So much more people run Windows than who run Linux and you know 
it's true, and it's never going to change. There is not a god damn thing you nor anybody else on this list can do about 
it. I know I will be shunned for saying this, but who cares what people think if all they do is waste their time trying 
to something as stupid as bring down Microsoft? 

As for your statement that Microsoft purposefully harms others, that is a completely ignorant thing to say, and you are 
downright stupid for saying it. If it is the customers that you are talking about, then I am not going to even bother 
to argue with you because that would be the dumbest thing that I have heard in my life. However, if by "others" you 
meen the open source community, then you, sir, have no idea of the concept known as "capitalism". It's this great thing 
where you actually get paid for what you spend your time doing! Wow! Microsoft practices capitalism, and is, quite 
frankly, very good at it.
Sure you can go around shouting, "Down with Microsoft, down with Microsoft!" but have you ever stopped to think, "Why 
do I hate Microsoft? Have they done anything wrong? Or am I just blowing smoke?" Give me one SPECIFIC example, Mr. 
Coombs, of why you personally have something against Microsoft, and I will get off your back. However, it is my 
personal opinion that you are just conforming to the mindset of the rest of the anti-MS fanatics. I am sick and tired 
of the stupidity that crowds this earth.

Regards,
Paul
Greyhats Security
http://greyhatsecurity.org

Let the flame wars begin!
-------------- Original message from "Jason Coombs" <jasonc () science org>: -------------- 


> > So there ya go. I suppose you'll 
> > find something new to complain 
> > about, or to be rude about. 
>
> Whenever possible, yes. 
>
> It's amazing how much you support Microsoft. Don't you know that it is in the 
> continued support that you give them that they derive their continued 
> opportunities to harm others? 
>
> Of course, the more you and others support Microsoft, the more your expertise 
> grows in value. 
>
> Compare your decision-making and ethics to the decisions made by me and others 
> who, after hard work and sacrifice to gain over a decade worth of training, 
> education, skill and work experience with Microsoft products, grew to understand 
> that it causes harm to the entire world for us to apply that skill in any 
> fashion that helps Microsoft. 
>
> I swore an oath never again to apply my skills in a way that helps Microsoft. 
>
> ... or to help any other organization that knowingly causes harm with reckless 
> disregard for the well-being of others. 
>
> Integrity, competency, and those who prove they are good people must be 
> supported, and anyone who lacks integrity, competency, and has proven they are 
> bad must be opposed. 
>
> To do otherwise demonstrates the same self-serving and wrong thinking that 
> enables Microsoft to con its victims in the first place. 
>
> Glad to see Microsoft give an opinion that more clearly explains that their 
> Windows 2000 product is inherently defective and shouldn't be used if you intend 
> to connect it to a computer network. 
>
> That was the conclusion that I arrived at after performing a forensic review of 
> IIS 5.0 -- you'll find my analysis contained within my book about IIS security: 
>
> http://www.science.org/jcoombs/ 
>
> http://www.forensics.org/IIS_Security_and_Programming_Countermeasures.pdf 
>
> Best, 
>
> Jason Coombs 
> jasonc () science org 
>
>
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: "Kurt Seifried" 
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:00:04 
> To: 
> Subject: MS not telling enough 
>
> They just updated MS05-039. 
>
> Windows 2000 systems are primarily at risk from this vulnerability. Windows 
> 2000 customers who have installed the MS05-039 security update are not 
> affected by this vulnerability. If an administrator has disabled anonymous 
> connections by changing the default setting of the RestrictAnonymous 
> registry key to a value of 2, Windows 2000 systems would not be vulnerable 
> remotely from anonymous users. However, because of a large application 
> compatibility risk, we do not recommend customers enable this setting in 
> production environments without first extensively testing the setting in 
> their environment. For more information, search for RestrictAnonymous at the 
> Microsoft Help and Support Web site. 
>
> So there ya go. I suppose you'll find something new to complain about, or to 
> be rude about. 
>
> -Kurt 
>
> _______________________________________________ 
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. 
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html 
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/