SSL compromised?

[jd.mubix at gmail.com (Rob Fuller)]

The funny thing about people relying on the "oh newer stuff isn't
vulnerable" argument is that enterprises, governments, corporations etc.
don't use the newest stuff. I've seen Windows NT still in use even today.
So, yes, the newest greatest could be completely secure against attacks, but
that doesn't mean they are in use by the masses.

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Justin Seitz <jms at bughunter.ca> wrote:

> Naw this attack is somewhat old, and newer browsers won't allow it from
> what I gather from the discussion on the DailyDave between Sotirov,
> Zalewski, et. al.
>
> helliott at knology.net wrote:
> > Havent had time to review the list for a bit, apologies if its a dupe,
> have yall seen this?
> >
> http://links.techwebnewsletters.com/ctt?kn=51&m=31529446&r=MTI2ODYzNTY1OAS2&b=0&j=NDU5NDgwNjkS1&mt=1&rt=0
> > Herndon Elliott
> > Madison, Al
> >
> > "Our children and grandchildren are saddled with a debt and future
> inflation that will insure a standard of living for them that will never
> match the standard their parents enjoyed." -- Neil Boortz
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pauldotcom mailing list
> > Pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com
> > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pauldotcom mailing list
> Pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com
> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.pauldotcom.com/pipermail/pauldotcom/attachments/20090220/96411cd8/attachment.htm