{semi-OT} xp sp 2 security flaws already found

  • Thread starter Thread starter *ProteanThread*
  • Start date Start date
P

*ProteanThread*

http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3396761

<SNIP>
German research firm Heise Security has issued an advisory for a pair of
security flaws in Microsoft's recently shipped Windows XP Service Pack 2
with a warning that attackers could launch malicious files from an untrusted
zone.
<SNIP>

I thought those who use XP here (or according to this report, IE as well -
does it affect ALL internet explorer users and shells?) might be interested
to know. Yes, I know that its not about freeware (except as free download
for XP users) but IMHO, security and privacy issues really never should be
off topic (to a reasonable point, of course).
 
German research firm Heise Security has issued an advisory for a pair
of security flaws in Microsoft's recently shipped Windows XP Service
Pack 2 with a warning that attackers could launch malicious files from
an untrusted zone.

I thought those who use XP here..
Click to expand...
<SNIP>

Isn't XP a commercial product ? ... Does a free upgrade to a commercial
product make it freeware ?
 
Reg Edit said:
<SNIP>

Isn't XP a commercial product ? ... Does a free upgrade to a commercial
product make it freeware ?
Click to expand...


you obviously missed the point of the OP as SP 2 has "already" been
discussed here many times as of recently.
 
Reg said:
<SNIP>

Isn't XP a commercial product ? ... Does a free upgrade to a commercial
product make it freeware ?
Click to expand...
Plus there are "Microsoft" usenet groups where this discussion would be
more "On Topic". ;)
 
Looker007 said:
Plus there are "Microsoft" usenet groups where this discussion would be
more "On Topic". ;)
Click to expand...

IMHO discussion of SP2 is on-topic where it relates to the effect it has on
the freeware used by ACF members, just as it is on topic to discuss whether
a particlar program runs on a specific OS.

===

Frank Bohan
¶ A bird in the hand is safer than one overhead.
 
Frank said:
IMHO discussion of SP2 is on-topic where it relates to the effect it has on
the freeware used by ACF members, just as it is on topic to discuss whether
a particlar program runs on a specific OS.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
I agree.
Click to expand...

I really wish you had a consistent standard JC. Seems to me that ANYTHING
is on-topic as long as it suits you, and when it doesn't you are the one to
post charters and rules and all sorts of reasons why its off-topic.
 
Reg said:
I really wish you had a consistent standard JC. Seems to me that ANYTHING
is on-topic as long as it suits you, and when it doesn't you are the one to
post charters and rules and all sorts of reasons why its off-topic.
Click to expand...

What a bunch of bullshit.

A. I do have a consistent standard. At least as consistent as is
humanly possible for me, being a human. (As an aside, where is any
listing of YOUR standards??? I'm as public about mine as possible, but
I don't see any listing of YOUR standards except when it suits you.)

B. I don't determine what *is* and what *isn't* on topic in this
group, the group does. My old F.A.Q. was based on extensive discussion
and voting.

C. I've NEVER posted a "charter" or "rule" since neither exists for
this UNMODERATED group. There are common sense guidelines and a little
thing called "Netiquette" that are supposed to provide a basis for
understanding how and what to post to this group.

As for posting reasons why something is off or on topic, I simply am
stating my opinions JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE DOES.

As far as discussion of SP2 being on or off topic, I couldn't have
been any clearer about it. But since you don't seem to be able to
grasp what I'm saying, here it is again in one place. Maybe you'll
understand it this time around:

1. Service Pack 2 in and of itself, is an upgrade to a commercial
software product thus announcing it's availability here in this group
is off topic...... *IMO* It's no more on topic, for instance, than an
upgrade to Adobe Photoshop or Norton Antivirus.

2. Discussion of SP2's effects on commonly used freeware is NOT off
topic, again.... *IMO*. We frequently talk about whether or not a
freeware program will work in various versions of Windows or not, and
this is no different.

Look, I'm not an automaton or a computer program. I'm capable of
exercising discretion on occasion when common sense calls for it. This
is one of those situations. Nothing in this group is black or white.
There are TONS of gray areas. If you're so upset by the standards I
ascribe to, why don't YOU write a ****ing FAQ and then see how much
fun it is defending it against the anarchists who frequent this group.
I have to ask myself, what your motivation is for making such an issue
about all this crap.

--
Regards from John "I drove back home from a run via a 50 mile winding
mountainous ride on my Harley through a driving rainstorm without rain
gear and I'm not in a ****ing good mood" Corliss
No adware, cdware, commercial software, crippleware, demoware,
nagware, shareware, spyware, time-limited software, trialware, viruses
or warez please.
 
What a bunch of bullshit.

A. I do have a consistent standard. At least as consistent as is
humanly possible for me, being a human. (As an aside, where is any
listing of YOUR standards??? I'm as public about mine as possible, but
I don't see any listing of YOUR standards except when it suits you.)
Click to expand...

No listing of my standards, I guess I don't have as many as you. Most of
what gets discussed here is considered on-topic by me. However, I am one
of the ones you occasionally flame and I always wonder why a particular
subject is OFF-TOPIC and others (to me, equally OFF-TOPIC) don't even
rate a mention from you (with you even contributing to the topic).
B. I don't determine what *is* and what *isn't* on topic in this
group, the group does. My old F.A.Q. was based on extensive discussion
and voting.
Click to expand...

No problems with that.
C. I've NEVER posted a "charter" or "rule" since neither exists for
this UNMODERATED group. There are common sense guidelines and a little
thing called "Netiquette" that are supposed to provide a basis for
understanding how and what to post to this group.

As for posting reasons why something is off or on topic, I simply am
stating my opinions JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE DOES.
Click to expand...

And my opinion sucks ?
As far as discussion of SP2 being on or off topic, I couldn't have
been any clearer about it. But since you don't seem to be able to
grasp what I'm saying, here it is again in one place. Maybe you'll
understand it this time around:

1. Service Pack 2 in and of itself, is an upgrade to a commercial
software product thus announcing it's availability here in this group
is off topic...... *IMO* It's no more on topic, for instance, than an
upgrade to Adobe Photoshop or Norton Antivirus.

2. Discussion of SP2's effects on commonly used freeware is NOT off
topic, again.... *IMO*. We frequently talk about whether or not a
freeware program will work in various versions of Windows or not, and
this is no different.
Click to expand...

Recheck the OP's post ..... it had nothing at all to do with SP2 and
freeware programs.
Look, I'm not an automaton or a computer program. I'm capable of
exercising discretion on occasion when common sense calls for it. This
is one of those situations. Nothing in this group is black or white.
There are TONS of gray areas. If you're so upset by the standards I
ascribe to, why don't YOU write a ****ing FAQ and then see how much
fun it is defending it against the anarchists who frequent this group.
I have to ask myself, what your motivation is for making such an issue
about all this crap.
Click to expand...

No motivation, just trying to understand why you flame me and not SOME
other individuals.
Regards from John "I drove back home from a run via a 50 mile winding
mountainous ride on my Harley through a driving rainstorm without rain
gear and I'm not in a ****ing good mood" Corliss
Click to expand...

Ah, nice bike, nice ride, shame about the rainstorm. You will cheer up.
 
I really wish you had a consistent standard JC. Seems to me that ANYTHING
is on-topic as long as it suits you, and when it doesn't you are the one to
post charters and rules and all sorts of reasons why its off-topic.
Click to expand...

IMO, Mr. Corliss is very vulnerable on this point. It really
undermines his sanctimonious position on how this NG should function.
 
Reg said:
No listing of my standards, I guess I don't have as many as you. Most of
what gets discussed here is considered on-topic by me. However, I am one
of the ones you occasionally flame and I always wonder why a particular
subject is OFF-TOPIC and others (to me, equally OFF-TOPIC) don't even
rate a mention from you (with you even contributing to the topic).
Click to expand...

I try to be as fair as possible when I criticize off-topic posts.
However, I'm not perfect as I said, because I'm human.
No problems with that.


And my opinion sucks ?
Click to expand...

Only if your opinion is that recommendation of any of the following here:

adware
cdware
commercial software
crippleware
demoware
nagware
shareware
spyware
time-limited software
trialware
viruses or warez

is on topic. I hope that isn't the case.
Recheck the OP's post ..... it had nothing at all to do with SP2 and
freeware programs.
Click to expand...

Some of it, you're right. But then there's another factor you need to
consider. I don't read everything that's posted to this group. I scan
through the subject headers for things of interest to me. When I see a
post that says something like "this is kinda off topic", or, "it's not
freeware, but..." and then goes on to recommend one of the types of
software that I've listed above, then my alert bell goes off and I ask
(as politely as I can until responses degenerate into a flame war) the
responder not to recommend non-freeware of those types here.
No motivation, just trying to understand why you flame me and not SOME
other individuals.
Click to expand...

There is no intentional discrimination on my part.
Ah, nice bike, nice ride, shame about the rainstorm. You will cheer up.
Click to expand...

<O.T.>
My leather coat and shoes are still soaking wet, but I've dried out
considerably. We needed the rain and I was glad as hell to see it.
</O.T.>

By the way, thanks for keeping things civil even if I failed miserably
at doing so yesterday. 80)>
 
Vic said:
IMO, Mr. Corliss
Click to expand...

Please call me "John".
is very vulnerable on this point. It really
undermines his sanctimonious
Click to expand...

Now Vic, we've been getting along pretty good lately. Please don't
undermine that by making such generalized and provocative remarks.
Read my responses to Reg Edit and perhaps some of it will clarify
things to you a little.
position on how this NG should function.
Click to expand...

God damn, I'm not a computer... I'm a human being like you and I'm not
perfect. I just do the best I can.
Seems to me that a lot of what you do is criticize me. That's a
whole lot easier than trying to come up with a list of standards like
I did and then defending it.

By the way, note that the signature file below is MY preferences and
doesn't agree with the FAQ that I wrote. I'm usually a lot more
puritanical when it comes to my *personal* definition of freeware.
Nonetheless, when I criticize somebody for posting O.T. it's based on
the FAQ I'd written because that was the result of extensive
discussion and voting in this group.
 
Please call me "John".


Now Vic, we've been getting along pretty good lately. Please don't
undermine that by making such generalized and provocative remarks.
Read my responses to Reg Edit and perhaps some of it will clarify
things to you a little.
Click to expand...

I believe the word "sanctimonious" was not a good word to describe
what I was thinking. Looking at that sentence right now, I would say
that "punctilious" would have been more accurate. Sorry about that.

However, in all honesty and with all due respect, I do agree with the
OP about your standards seeming to be inconsistently applied. That's
just my opinion of course, but I seem to recall several others making
a similar comment at various times.
 
Vic said:
I believe the word "sanctimonious" was not a good word to describe
what I was thinking. Looking at that sentence right now, I would say
that "punctilious" would have been more accurate. Sorry about that.

However, in all honesty and with all due respect, I do agree with the
OP about your standards seeming to be inconsistently applied. That's
just my opinion of course, but I seem to recall several others making
a similar comment at various times.
Click to expand...

Vic,
I'm not perfect, I'm human. I do the best I can.
 
Back
Top