[ Date Index ]
[ Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date /
thread ]
[ Next by date /
thread => ]
Re: [LUG] windows 7 smb vulnerability
- To: list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [LUG] windows 7 smb vulnerability
- From: "Michael Mortimore" <nospamformike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:51:57 -0000
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:content-type:to:subject :references:date:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:from :message-id:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=PftRNqLu/YFOAam+oOYWnrC7LAESBAMywxZeaOgtBcw=; b=u25p4hnS1eFgf4Q08KlACuCpkZxUIpqdYx54mLKO4G1H6J5okYWgXAlJLzgAdUU1TL tYKFGOyitSayGZn7de7EQrsxtq94P9dcZA1X54EidpaqL+MI7vZ0pqdmkzUHxA1NWDls SguQy1yfAo2mX9lyf3OZIoo8CCvTCgEBaIO3s=
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:04:26 -0000, Paul Sutton <zleap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
how exactly can there be a problem with they way that MS inplements a
standard, if you follow the standard properly there should not be issues
surely.
Depends on how well defined the standard is. Do they normally consider
possible exploits in a standards document? Based on the standards
documents i've read, I wouldn't have thought so.
--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html
