|
Petronius -> RE: Maybe leaving CM.. A warning (7/13/2007 7:03:40 PM)
|
Darcyandthedark wrote:
quote:
You simply have to go to Microsoft Security Bulletin to find windows media and MSN vulnerability reports.
MSN is a collection of various services. I believe D. means that I should check vulnerability reports for "MSN Messenger" or "Windows Live Messenger" or both.
But it isn't my job; it is D's. I was very exact in what I wrote: that I had not heard of any report of a hack that let a messenger service "get into your computer" in the form written of. If there are such reports it is up to the person claiming that to show them, not to direct me or anyone else into some vague general area to discover we're wrong.
Politesub53 wrote, and Darcyandthedark agreed that:
quote:
I have to say that even if people dont believe what you write, to mention about health problems is quite wrong and must breach the TOS here.
I am not sure what this refers to. Let me assume, for the sake of argument, that it refers to my use of the word "paranoid."
This started as a political discussion, relating to an ostensible problem in our society about technology, the state of major corporations concerning security, and the role played or not played by law enforcement. Given that, somebody can hardly object if a word is presented as a summary of an analysis of their actions.
In terms of "health problems" I did suggest psychotherapy but that suggestion is routinely made by different people in discussions. Moreover, psychological terms are used all of the time in these discussions, e.g. HNG ("horny net geek").
Darcyandthedark wrote:
quote:
What has been said is technically (see - a pun) slanderous, should Lockit decide to take that issue further. Especially from someone who has now shown they have little knowledge of how vulnerable messanger and hotmail services are... let alone how a virus can be passed through that and mediaplayer as well - even when listing 'sources' (a couple of which are crap for info btw).
Actually, to be technical it would be "libel" and not "slander." Moreover if it is libel it is libel whether or not Lockit would decide to "take the issue further."
I have found that people who may initially get upset and threaten legal action around libel tend not to do so when they get a better idea of what a suit means. In this case -- truth being a defense -- it would mean I'd be given total access to all her computers, total access to all the computers she used (insofar as she had any control over them), all her email, her diary (if any) etc. Discovery in a libel case goes on forever.
It is more the norm for somebody who attacks major corporations and law enforcement to complain to an ISP that he or she has hurt feelings.
Darcyandthedark goes on to claim, without evidence or substance, that I have been someone "who has now shown they have little knowledge of how vulnerable messanger and hotmail services are... " There's been no showing of any sort as far as I can tell. This is particularly the case since the issue was never about mere vulnerability that every software program has but a particular type of vulnerability that existed in concrete form and let hackers do very specific things. Abstract words about abstract vulnerabilities are mere puffery and detract from the real issue.
Things are even worse, as when D. wrote of me as someone with no additional knowledge of "how a virus can be passed through that and mediaplayer as well "
Again there's been no showing of either of these because they hadn't been part of the discussion. Mediaplayer, in particular, is a utterly irrelevant piece of software in this discussion and an utterly irrelevant point.
Nor has the real issue been a mere "passing through" of some messenger service by a "virus" (although the original description of the hack in question seems to be more a one-time Trojan horse, not a self-replicating virus.)
Of course nasty things can pass through messenger services and email services. Somebody sends a piece of destructive software following the normal form for mailing. Then the person at the other end opens it. But this isn't a buy in the messenger service or email. The problem doesn't come from the messenger service software. The issue isn't any bug in the messenger service. The messenger service functioned exactly as it was supposed to.
By way of illustrations: Medico cylinders provide quite good, but not perfect, physical security for your house. It would be highly inaccurate for somebody to claim "Medico's are shit. I put one on my door, didn't lock it, and got robbed." Similarly in a discussion about bullets it would hardly been accurate to charge somebody who wrote that "unloaded guns never shoot anybody" lacked knowledge of guns since you can get hurt dropping an unloaded gun on your foot.
I understand that Internet-based discussions contain a lot of personal slagging; but one really should provide some evidence to back up one's claims. Failing that it starts to look like libel (so to speak).
|
|
|
|
