Re: New M$ vulnerability patch for Windows

["Adam Lang" <aalang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Maybe because i don't want ad agencies sending me pop ups every 30 seconds
via the window smessenger protocol?

Not to be hash, but saying "if you keep up to date on patches you don't need
a firewall" and then follow with this comment "> I just question if we are
all overreacting because we are not aware of the
> details of how things work." is a bit weak.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Richter" <srichter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 10:44 AM
Subject: RE: New M$ vulnerability patch for Windows


>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Adam Lang
> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 9:42 AM
> To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
> Subject: Re: New M$ vulnerability patch for Windows
>
> other than a buffer overrun flaw in Windows Messenger Service, why would a
> user need to block access to it?  If the protocol server, even FTP, does
> what it is designed to do, why does access to it have to be completely
> blocked?
>
> I just question if we are all overreacting because we are not aware of the
> details of how things work.
>
> -Steve