full-disclosure - Windoze almost managed to 200x repeat 9/11

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: abaker at gmail.com (ASB)
Subject: Windoze almost managed to 200x repeat 9/11

There was more than enough information provided in the initial link,
besides what was available to those who took a moment or 3 to search
for additional info, to avoid coming to the conclusion that the OS was
the fault here.

The mere fact that thousands, if not millions of people manage to run
Windows 2000 systems which do not keel over every 49.7 days, would
tend to cause one to look elsewhere for the source of the issue. 
Beyond that, the wording of the various articles on this issue that I
looked at, made it rather obvious that there was an issue with the
APPLICATION which rendered it useless if certain operator steps were
not performed. No matter how scanty you feel the articles were, they
never even implied that the OS was inoperable during any of this.

While it is certainly important to have as much information as
possible before rendering verdicts of any sort, and while not every
issue can be definitively outlined as jet black or lily white, there's
not a whole lot more forensics that's needed to conclude that the root
of the issue is one of application development, compounded by the
failure of an operator to perform a prescribed workaround at the
appointed time.

The irony here is that you're accusing me of not reading or comprehending.

-ASB

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 20:41:34 -0400, Barry Fitzgerald
<bkfsec@....lonestar.org> wrote:
> ASB wrote:
> 
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >Next time, please read the thread in context.
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >The context of the thread is that an application issue is being
> >incorrectly interpreted as an OS issue.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> Oversimplification is for the foolish.  Like I said, you're not too bright.
> 
> You're showing very little understanding of system architecture here.
> My point regarding where the code was located had to do with a
> generalized statement regarding applications being at fault for issues
> and for them not being OS issues.  My point was that it's not always
> clear cut.
> 
> I was not trying to say that this case was an OS issue.  I was trying to
> say that the line is not always black and white.  I was also pointing
> out that none of us know because the only information we have to go on
> is third-hand and imprecise.  If you can predict conditions based on
> imprecise third-hand information, then what are you doing here?!?  Go
> solve the world's problems or something.  of course, you can't so you've
> decided to just flame people.
> 
> Please re-read my posts and think before you respond.
> 
> If, besides misreading my posts, you can find no argument with what I've
> said (which, you won't, because I'm right) then I'm willing to hear
> them.  Other than that, you're just wasting everyone's time by trying to
> railroad points that you don't understand.
> 
>       -Barry