Re: new IE bug (confirmed on ALL windows)

["Dave Korn" <davek_throwaway () hotmail com>]

Greg wrote in news:002101c5dfec$3928ac90$5601010a@P4
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bkfsec" bkfsec () sdf lonestar org

> > To be honest, anyone who doesn't understand the previous paragraph,
> > needs to shut the fuck up, report their results, and let the rest >
> > of us who have a clue sort the shit out.
>
> It isn't hard to prove he is wrong.

  Tragic.  You clearly didn't understand that previous paragraph, after all. 
If only you had stopped, while you were behind.  If only you had taken 
bkfsec's sage advice.  Now I'm just going to _have_ to publicly humiliate 
you.  So let's start with the first point:

 You haven't proved _anyone_ wrong.

  Let me explain it to you, step-by-step, in very short words that even 
*you* should be able to understand:

1)  He said what happened when he tried it out on his system: it crashed.
2)  You tried it out on a completely different system (your own) and it 
didn't crash.

  Anyone but a complete moron would realise that YOUR TWO SYSTEMS BEHAVE 
DIFFERENTLY.   But no: you keep on insisting that he's wrong, that he didn't 
see what he saw with his own eyes, he posted a screen-grab that showed a 
crash and yet you persist in the moronic belief that his system HAS to 
behave just like yours therefore he must be wrong when he said he'd seen it 
crash.

  Fuck.  What's so hard to grasp?

> Takes about 30 seconds, if that.

  In saying this, you *admit* that your research was shallow and completely 
inadequate.

> I can understand someone misses something which is why I reported
> that person was wrong. That was all I did. I don't honestly care THAT
> much about it. However, if the fool cant take being wrong, that
> proves his worth which is why I don't care what he says in future. No
> honest-to-goodness proper researcher cares about being corrected when
> it is that easy to prove they made a mistake. I have seen the real
> ones thank people on this list and others when this has happened.
> They are the researchers I read.

  I've spoken to Class101 before.  He *knows* what he's talking about.  He 
knows how to code, how to hack, how to write a sploit, how to test a piece 
of software for MORE THAN 30 SECONDS before attempting to draw conclusions.

  Whereas you have failed to show the logical reasoning abilities of a piece 
of burnt toast.  Hence you persist in the utterly fallacious reasoning that 
"Because all win98 machines must behave exactly alike, and yet he claims his 
did something that mine did not, he must be wrong".

> I know this is FULL disclosure but do we need to expose being
> incapable of being wrong?

  PKB.  You only keep making these posts because you believe YOU are 
incapable of being wrong.

> Such is life.
>
> My last post on the subject. Seems pointless going any further. You
> either accept you are wrong or thrash about like a 6 year old. I
> accept the differences between French and English version but didn't
> see that till after my last post. Perhaps if the original poster
> could do the same and realise that the majority of Windows users are
> English speaking, we could leave it at that. It explains my mistake.

  Oh, so now it's "I didn't make a mistake and he is wrong but in fact I was 
wrong and did make a mistake but anyway that's not my fault because I am 
ignorant of the fact that there is more than one language in the world".  If 
this was Usenet I'd be calling SPNAK on your sorry ass about now.

  So you agree you made a stupid mistake because you made a false 
assumption?  There's hope for you yet.

> Hopefully he accepts it explains his instead of coming up with more
> of the same.
> Greg.

  Again, you would do well to look in the mirror when giving advice like 
that.

    HTH!
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... 



_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/