[42112] in bugtraq
Re: Did MS pull an Ilfak? (MS patch bindiff results)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Denis Jedig)
Wed Jan 11 19:29:50 2006
Message-ID: <43C4E665.1070802@syneticon.de>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:05:09 +0100
From: Denis Jedig <seclists@syneticon.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Polk <listuser.jav@gmail.com>
Cc: bugtraq@securityfocus.com
In-Reply-To: <43C3C2BD.5050200@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Joe Polk wrote:
> Actually, Ilfak never tested his patch on a Win 9x machine. Steve
> Gibson, however, plans to write a patch for 95, 98, and ME if Microsoft doesn't.
The patch Ilfak wrote can't work on a Windows 9x machine since it relies
on technology that did not exist in Windows 9x.
The idea that Gibson is going to "write" a patch for Windows 9x and save
the mankind sounds pretty ridiculous. Even if there will be a patch for
Windows 9x written by third parties *and* GRC happens to be one of them
(or at least claims being one of them, probably the best and/or the only
one), I am pretty confident that Gibsons solution is to be considered
the least trustworthy one. He never published sophisticated software
(and still there is no claim that he really wrote the software he
publishes) and he apparently has absolutely no clue about the security
implications he is talking about. GRC looks like a huge marketing bubble
without *any* fundamental security researcher knowledge behind it.
For more information on the status of the WMF vulnerability in Windows
9x i'd like to refer to an article by Swa Frantzen at SANS ISC:
http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=1024
For more non-marketing information on GRC please refer to:
http://www.grcsucks.com/
Regards,
Denis Jedig
syneticon networks GbR
