full-disclosure - Re: Re: According to Ivan, the secret ZA phone-homeserver is located at 127.0.0.1 [was Re: Re:Re: ZoneAlarm phones home]

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <dsartm$so2$1@sea.gmane.org>
Date: Tue Feb  7 19:21:39 2006
From: davek_throwaway at hotmail.com (Dave Korn)
Subject: Re: Re: According to Ivan,
	the secret ZA phone-homeserver is located at
	127.0.0.1 [was Re: Re:Re: ZoneAlarm phones home]

Ivan . wrote:
> Your quite a piece fo work Dave.

  And you're a smug, self-satisified fool who doesn't even understand how 
blinded by his own ignorance he is.

>The "secret" server is acutally
> zonelabs.com, hence the workaround to edit the hosts file and map that
> domain to the loopback address. Do you know how windows hosts file
> works? No, here is link that may help you

  Of course I know how the hosts file works.  You're great at posting links 
to irrelevant articles that have nothing to do with the thread, but you're 
utterly unable to comprehend plain english.

> The work around issued by zonealarm and their response to this list,
> is proof enough for me that there was an issue and probably quite a
> few other people. But not you Dave, eh?

  This bit about "there being an issue" is not anything I have ever denied, 
and it is only because you are unable to understand plain english that you 
think I did.

  If you actually READ my first post in this thread, you would understand 
that I have never at any time denied that Zone Alarm has an auto-update 
feature built in.

  If you had actually READ Bob Cringeley's article you would see that he 
describes this as "surreptitiously sending encrypted data back to four 
different servers".

  My first post in this thread claimed that Cringely was spreading FUD, and 
had provided no evidence to back up his claim.

  You said he had done, but then you kept posting a link to a different 
article by someone who IS NOT CRINGELY.

  When I point out to you that you haven't actually contradicted what I 
said, you simply post the same link to the same irrelevant article by some 
entirely unconnected third party.  No matter how many times you post that 
link, the article will not suddenly have magically been written by Cringely 
instead.

  Now go back over the thread again and ACTUALLY READ IT.  You should 
probably get an adult to help you with the big words, otherwise you might 
end up not understanding what you're reading yet again.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....