<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_07_1254243</id>
	<title>Microsoft Warns of New Video ActiveX Vulnerability</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1246973640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ucanlookitup writes <i>"Microsoft has <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j5Xl8ruQxmd-Z9s0yQ96bBgNOacAD9996H7O0">warned of a 'privately reported' vulnerability</a> affecting IE users on XP or Windows Server 2003. The vulnerability allows remote users to execute arbitrary code with the same privileges as the users. The vulnerability is triggered when users visit a web site with malicious code. 'Security experts say criminals have been attacking the vulnerability for nearly a week. Thousands of sites have been hacked to serve up malicious software that exploits the vulnerability.' <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/972890.mspx">The advisory</a> can be found at TechNet. Until Microsoft develops a patch, <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/972890#FixItForMe">a workaround is available</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ucanlookitup writes " Microsoft has warned of a 'privately reported ' vulnerability affecting IE users on XP or Windows Server 2003 .
The vulnerability allows remote users to execute arbitrary code with the same privileges as the users .
The vulnerability is triggered when users visit a web site with malicious code .
'Security experts say criminals have been attacking the vulnerability for nearly a week .
Thousands of sites have been hacked to serve up malicious software that exploits the vulnerability .
' The advisory can be found at TechNet .
Until Microsoft develops a patch , a workaround is available .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ucanlookitup writes "Microsoft has warned of a 'privately reported' vulnerability affecting IE users on XP or Windows Server 2003.
The vulnerability allows remote users to execute arbitrary code with the same privileges as the users.
The vulnerability is triggered when users visit a web site with malicious code.
'Security experts say criminals have been attacking the vulnerability for nearly a week.
Thousands of sites have been hacked to serve up malicious software that exploits the vulnerability.
' The advisory can be found at TechNet.
Until Microsoft develops a patch, a workaround is available.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28610013</id>
	<title>Re:Isolate!</title>
	<author>geekprime</author>
	<datestamp>1246988880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not saying that MS shouldn't have in the first place but sandboxie does exist and does a pretty good job I think.</p><p><a href="http://www.sandboxie.com/" title="sandboxie.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.sandboxie.com/</a> [sandboxie.com]<br>(I just use it when I have no choice but to use exploder)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not saying that MS should n't have in the first place but sandboxie does exist and does a pretty good job I think.http : //www.sandboxie.com/ [ sandboxie.com ] ( I just use it when I have no choice but to use exploder )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not saying that MS shouldn't have in the first place but sandboxie does exist and does a pretty good job I think.http://www.sandboxie.com/ [sandboxie.com](I just use it when I have no choice but to use exploder)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607709</id>
	<title>Hey now, at least they jump on the ball.</title>
	<author>BlueKitties</author>
	<datestamp>1246979880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mac might not have as many problems, but they're a lot slower to muck around to fixing their holes. Not that I'm trying to start a war, just that I think you all ought to be less harsh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mac might not have as many problems , but they 're a lot slower to muck around to fixing their holes .
Not that I 'm trying to start a war , just that I think you all ought to be less harsh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mac might not have as many problems, but they're a lot slower to muck around to fixing their holes.
Not that I'm trying to start a war, just that I think you all ought to be less harsh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607689</id>
	<title>Simplest workaround</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246979820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dump Windows, install any Linux distribution you like... Look Ma! No more Active-X!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dump Windows , install any Linux distribution you like... Look Ma !
No more Active-X !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dump Windows, install any Linux distribution you like... Look Ma!
No more Active-X!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607299</id>
	<title>better workaround</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246978320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/" title="mozilla.com">http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/</a> [mozilla.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ [ mozilla.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ [mozilla.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607711</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246979940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Windows Vista, which isn't vulnerable, is used by 25\% of the world's population.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Windows Vista , which is n't vulnerable , is used by 25 \ % of the world 's population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Windows Vista, which isn't vulnerable, is used by 25\% of the world's population.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607455</id>
	<title>Re:Isolate!</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1246978920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isolation only helps so much. Given that a lot of interesting malware targets (online banking, paypal, amazon, ebay...) are used exactly with the same browsers that would execute the malware, containing it to the browser doesn't really help a lot. You'd have to disallow the browser to make changes to itself. And, while sensible, this would not be very popular with a lot of people who want to "click and install".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Isolation only helps so much .
Given that a lot of interesting malware targets ( online banking , paypal , amazon , ebay... ) are used exactly with the same browsers that would execute the malware , containing it to the browser does n't really help a lot .
You 'd have to disallow the browser to make changes to itself .
And , while sensible , this would not be very popular with a lot of people who want to " click and install " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isolation only helps so much.
Given that a lot of interesting malware targets (online banking, paypal, amazon, ebay...) are used exactly with the same browsers that would execute the malware, containing it to the browser doesn't really help a lot.
You'd have to disallow the browser to make changes to itself.
And, while sensible, this would not be very popular with a lot of people who want to "click and install".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607481</id>
	<title>Funny but wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246979040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Funnily, this issue is exactly the same in Linux "</p><p>Funny, but the situation is not like that at all on Linux.  On Linux, the browser runs inside SELinux and has ZERO ability to get at any kinds of administrative functionality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Funnily , this issue is exactly the same in Linux " Funny , but the situation is not like that at all on Linux .
On Linux , the browser runs inside SELinux and has ZERO ability to get at any kinds of administrative functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Funnily, this issue is exactly the same in Linux "Funny, but the situation is not like that at all on Linux.
On Linux, the browser runs inside SELinux and has ZERO ability to get at any kinds of administrative functionality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28608157</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1246981620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/972890#FixItForMe" title="microsoft.com">here</a> [microsoft.com] is the fix and no, it isn't "downgrading to Vista." It disables the vulnerable parts of the OS/IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>here [ microsoft.com ] is the fix and no , it is n't " downgrading to Vista .
" It disables the vulnerable parts of the OS/IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>here [microsoft.com] is the fix and no, it isn't "downgrading to Vista.
" It disables the vulnerable parts of the OS/IE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607611</id>
	<title>Hi, I'm a mac</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1246979520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have nothing further to say, I just wanna stand here in my black turtle-neck with my cup of coffee looking smug.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/typed on my MBP, so simma-down now fan boys...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-P</p><p>Seriously, this exploit sucks.  I've gotta patch a butt-load of computers today now.  Thanks a lot MS.  Anyone know if the MSI file has a silent install option?  Or can it be done via GPO?</p><p>I just walked in, this smacked me right in the face this am.  Damnit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have nothing further to say , I just wan na stand here in my black turtle-neck with my cup of coffee looking smug .
/typed on my MBP , so simma-down now fan boys... ; -PSeriously , this exploit sucks .
I 've got ta patch a butt-load of computers today now .
Thanks a lot MS. Anyone know if the MSI file has a silent install option ?
Or can it be done via GPO ? I just walked in , this smacked me right in the face this am .
Damnit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have nothing further to say, I just wanna stand here in my black turtle-neck with my cup of coffee looking smug.
/typed on my MBP, so simma-down now fan boys... ;-PSeriously, this exploit sucks.
I've gotta patch a butt-load of computers today now.
Thanks a lot MS.  Anyone know if the MSI file has a silent install option?
Or can it be done via GPO?I just walked in, this smacked me right in the face this am.
Damnit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28698331</id>
	<title>Re:Isolate!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247577420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linus: OSes are like Onions.<br>Bill: They stink?<br>Linus: Yes. (double take) NO!<br>Bill: They make you cry?<br>Linus: No.<br>Bill: Oh, you leave em out in the sun, they get all brown, start sproutin' little white hairs.<br>Linus: NO. Layers. Onions have layers. OSes have layers. Onions have layers. You get it? They both have layers.<br>[sighs]<br>Bill: Oh, they both have layers. Oh. You know, not everybody like onions.</p><p>Bill: You know what else everybody likes? Parfaits. Have you ever met a person, you say, "Let's get some parfait," they say, "Hell no, I don't like no parfait"? Parfaits are delicious.<br>Linus: No! You dense, irritating, miniature beast of burden! OSes are like onions! End of story. Bye-bye. See ya later.</p><p>Bill: You're so wrapped up in layers onion boy, you forgot about market share!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linus : OSes are like Onions.Bill : They stink ? Linus : Yes .
( double take ) NO ! Bill : They make you cry ? Linus : No.Bill : Oh , you leave em out in the sun , they get all brown , start sproutin ' little white hairs.Linus : NO .
Layers. Onions have layers .
OSes have layers .
Onions have layers .
You get it ?
They both have layers .
[ sighs ] Bill : Oh , they both have layers .
Oh. You know , not everybody like onions.Bill : You know what else everybody likes ?
Parfaits. Have you ever met a person , you say , " Let 's get some parfait , " they say , " Hell no , I do n't like no parfait " ?
Parfaits are delicious.Linus : No !
You dense , irritating , miniature beast of burden !
OSes are like onions !
End of story .
Bye-bye. See ya later.Bill : You 're so wrapped up in layers onion boy , you forgot about market share !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linus: OSes are like Onions.Bill: They stink?Linus: Yes.
(double take) NO!Bill: They make you cry?Linus: No.Bill: Oh, you leave em out in the sun, they get all brown, start sproutin' little white hairs.Linus: NO.
Layers. Onions have layers.
OSes have layers.
Onions have layers.
You get it?
They both have layers.
[sighs]Bill: Oh, they both have layers.
Oh. You know, not everybody like onions.Bill: You know what else everybody likes?
Parfaits. Have you ever met a person, you say, "Let's get some parfait," they say, "Hell no, I don't like no parfait"?
Parfaits are delicious.Linus: No!
You dense, irritating, miniature beast of burden!
OSes are like onions!
End of story.
Bye-bye. See ya later.Bill: You're so wrapped up in layers onion boy, you forgot about market share!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28618993</id>
	<title>Re:better workaround</title>
	<author>Burpmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1247044620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not a workaround, that's a solution!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not a workaround , that 's a solution !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not a workaround, that's a solution!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607897</id>
	<title>something else to be wary of</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1246980480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Media Player will try to download codecs for certain wmv files. I stick with VLC and never use wmv's. But someone I know used the wmv and downloaded the codec and got a rootkit instead. I'd not previously heard of this method of attack but it doesn't surprise me a jot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Media Player will try to download codecs for certain wmv files .
I stick with VLC and never use wmv 's .
But someone I know used the wmv and downloaded the codec and got a rootkit instead .
I 'd not previously heard of this method of attack but it does n't surprise me a jot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Media Player will try to download codecs for certain wmv files.
I stick with VLC and never use wmv's.
But someone I know used the wmv and downloaded the codec and got a rootkit instead.
I'd not previously heard of this method of attack but it doesn't surprise me a jot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28608905</id>
	<title>Re:Sarah Palin Post</title>
	<author>megamerican</author>
	<datestamp>1246984440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out," she said.</p><p>There is no "Department of Law" at the White House.</p></div><p>To be fair, everything must be Orwellian named so we have the Department of Justice, meaning there is none.</p><p>At least she knows how many states there are. Obama once said he had visited 57 states (google it). Obama can sound a lot like Bush when not in front of a teleprompter. Of course you wouldn't know that because the TV won't dare make a joke about him. Free and independent press, indeed.</p><p>Who cares about Sarah Palin anyway? It must be fun to degrade anyone who doesn't believe everything you do. We must be back in elementary school.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I think on a national level , your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we 've been charged with and automatically throw them out , " she said.There is no " Department of Law " at the White House.To be fair , everything must be Orwellian named so we have the Department of Justice , meaning there is none.At least she knows how many states there are .
Obama once said he had visited 57 states ( google it ) .
Obama can sound a lot like Bush when not in front of a teleprompter .
Of course you would n't know that because the TV wo n't dare make a joke about him .
Free and independent press , indeed.Who cares about Sarah Palin anyway ?
It must be fun to degrade anyone who does n't believe everything you do .
We must be back in elementary school .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out," she said.There is no "Department of Law" at the White House.To be fair, everything must be Orwellian named so we have the Department of Justice, meaning there is none.At least she knows how many states there are.
Obama once said he had visited 57 states (google it).
Obama can sound a lot like Bush when not in front of a teleprompter.
Of course you wouldn't know that because the TV won't dare make a joke about him.
Free and independent press, indeed.Who cares about Sarah Palin anyway?
It must be fun to degrade anyone who doesn't believe everything you do.
We must be back in elementary school.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28619761</id>
	<title>Re:Hi, I'm a mac</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1247056920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be hard to explain the real concept and danger to a Mac user and be sure the Mac users (ones not coming from win) will be member of  of the "I don`t care` profile.</p><p>I speak about Virtual Machine and Boot Camp running Mac users. They have never lived the disasters like Blaster and mostly they think "I don`t pirate or porn, I should be safe". Run Windows Update on one of boot camp users machine and see yourself. Of course, I am part of "run a free AV inside virtual machine" since I had very nice (!) memories about zero days back in the day.</p><p>Last real virus for Mac was running on entirely different OS (MacOS) and it wasn`t something you could prevent via update from Apple.</p><p>In fact, that fact and the concept junk out there which has been abused by AV vendors is the reason why first OS X real virus/worm could be a disaster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be hard to explain the real concept and danger to a Mac user and be sure the Mac users ( ones not coming from win ) will be member of of the " I don ` t care ` profile.I speak about Virtual Machine and Boot Camp running Mac users .
They have never lived the disasters like Blaster and mostly they think " I don ` t pirate or porn , I should be safe " .
Run Windows Update on one of boot camp users machine and see yourself .
Of course , I am part of " run a free AV inside virtual machine " since I had very nice ( !
) memories about zero days back in the day.Last real virus for Mac was running on entirely different OS ( MacOS ) and it wasn ` t something you could prevent via update from Apple.In fact , that fact and the concept junk out there which has been abused by AV vendors is the reason why first OS X real virus/worm could be a disaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be hard to explain the real concept and danger to a Mac user and be sure the Mac users (ones not coming from win) will be member of  of the "I don`t care` profile.I speak about Virtual Machine and Boot Camp running Mac users.
They have never lived the disasters like Blaster and mostly they think "I don`t pirate or porn, I should be safe".
Run Windows Update on one of boot camp users machine and see yourself.
Of course, I am part of "run a free AV inside virtual machine" since I had very nice (!
) memories about zero days back in the day.Last real virus for Mac was running on entirely different OS (MacOS) and it wasn`t something you could prevent via update from Apple.In fact, that fact and the concept junk out there which has been abused by AV vendors is the reason why first OS X real virus/worm could be a disaster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607161</id>
	<title>I knew it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246977780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Italians are at it again, those sneaky bastards. When will they learn that America will mercilessly defend her Freedom against Italian savagery? Down with the Active-Italian-X-axis! Down with Communo-Islamo-Italo-Fascism and its running dogs in the USA!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Italians are at it again , those sneaky bastards .
When will they learn that America will mercilessly defend her Freedom against Italian savagery ?
Down with the Active-Italian-X-axis !
Down with Communo-Islamo-Italo-Fascism and its running dogs in the USA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Italians are at it again, those sneaky bastards.
When will they learn that America will mercilessly defend her Freedom against Italian savagery?
Down with the Active-Italian-X-axis!
Down with Communo-Islamo-Italo-Fascism and its running dogs in the USA!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28617803</id>
	<title>Work around is available...</title>
	<author>motang</author>
	<datestamp>1246987440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...use Firefox or Opera!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...use Firefox or Opera !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...use Firefox or Opera!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28619813</id>
	<title>MS security is hopeless</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1247057340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is how to fix a security threat from MS:<br>Then click Run in the File Download dialog box, and follow the steps in this wizard.</p><p>Oh yes, keep teaching your users how to press "run" from web browser, even on a concept/method which was created in 2009. Let them "run" everything, for easiness. This thing happens while Apple, vendor of OS X warns user about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe files, under Safari for OS X!</p><p>I know how their simple mind works. Now that couple of people who doesn't ignore them warned about how stupid to suggest users to run things? They will make the exact same thing in Silverlight, their thing which nobody except them (and couple of bribed) uses. They will say "but this is more secure". Only it will require Silverlight to run.</p><p>Any more zero days in pocket for that MS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is how to fix a security threat from MS : Then click Run in the File Download dialog box , and follow the steps in this wizard.Oh yes , keep teaching your users how to press " run " from web browser , even on a concept/method which was created in 2009 .
Let them " run " everything , for easiness .
This thing happens while Apple , vendor of OS X warns user about .exe files , under Safari for OS X ! I know how their simple mind works .
Now that couple of people who does n't ignore them warned about how stupid to suggest users to run things ?
They will make the exact same thing in Silverlight , their thing which nobody except them ( and couple of bribed ) uses .
They will say " but this is more secure " .
Only it will require Silverlight to run.Any more zero days in pocket for that MS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is how to fix a security threat from MS:Then click Run in the File Download dialog box, and follow the steps in this wizard.Oh yes, keep teaching your users how to press "run" from web browser, even on a concept/method which was created in 2009.
Let them "run" everything, for easiness.
This thing happens while Apple, vendor of OS X warns user about .exe files, under Safari for OS X!I know how their simple mind works.
Now that couple of people who doesn't ignore them warned about how stupid to suggest users to run things?
They will make the exact same thing in Silverlight, their thing which nobody except them (and couple of bribed) uses.
They will say "but this is more secure".
Only it will require Silverlight to run.Any more zero days in pocket for that MS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28626625</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes I wonder...</title>
	<author>lamapper</author>
	<datestamp>1247083140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because they (banks) are as lazy and even cheaper than many corporations today.  If they can hire cheaper labor they will (and they do); expecting this cheaper labor to know about exploits; have time to learn about exploits; or to use their free time to learn about exploits in order to thwart and prevent them is a bit much.

</p><p>Do not assume because you care and take the time to look at the code of every patch you download and install on your PC that others do.  (<i>Besides by definition, only open source users have even the potential to go through the code and look for suspicious code</i>, not that many do).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Time is money.</p></div><p>You get what you pay for.  And if you want quality security, quality applications, quality people; you MUST give them the <b>time</b> to learn about the exploits.  Give them time to test the update, upgrade, patch before rolling it out to the general population.  How many of you, responsible for this task at your business, are not given adequate time to use and test a new release before rolling it out to the general population?  My guess is more than 95\% are not given the time as their boss simply expects the upgrade, update, patch to have been sufficiently tested, checked and verified okay, thus why give any of his employees to do it again.  Never mind that your environment (<i>network, software, hardware, etc</i>) is most likely a little different than those releasing the patch, update, upgrade.

</p><p>And remember, IE and Active X gives the user a richer experience with the banks website (<i>pun intended</i>)

</p><p>I also thought there were laws on the books in the United States governing security for banks specifically.  To protect and keep safe the pipes between financial institutions and therefore ensure secure transactions. With the many break ins reported over the last two years it makes one wonder if the laws are inadequate; or if the banks are ignoring the laws and installing software / hardware that is honestly NOT secure behind their firewall/routers.  or if the banks are taking the easier, cheaper way out, paying inexperienced people to install insecure and buggy software and hardware.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Compliance might be overly expensive for banks.</p></div><p>After all Microsoft only spent billions to secure a Windows Operating System (<i>not the OS you and I have access to</i>) for government use ONLY AFTER the US government threatened to remove Windows desktop operating systems from the acceptable to purchase BID list used by most government agencies.

</p><p>I have not read about any similar edicts from the Federal Reserve, Banks in general or other financial institutions.  Thus banks have not given proprietary vendors the same incentive that the US Government gave Microsoft.

</p><p>My guess is that the banks do not publicize these weaknesses as many do not have a viable solution.  And given the state of auto-updates, auto-downloads and forced updates and installs today, if a bank did secure their environment, they would NOT be able to maintain a secure environment as these forced updates are usually weekly and at least monthly.  I was on a site that updated daily, never bothered to check what they were updating every day, why look into a foolish practice in the first place.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Note: not saying daily builds is foolish, just forcing users to update every day, without option not to is foolish.</p></div><p>Are there any banks that are maintaining their own independent repositories for updates / downloads, thus not automatically accepting all the patches that are pushed down users throats by proprietary companies?  Can you even do this with the Microsoft platform, prevent external update sources and have 100\% of all updates / upgrades performed from your internally tested secure repositories?

</p><p>I know you can do this with Unix and Linux.  But are any banks doing this, I know a few companies are.

</p><p>Can you do this with the MacIntosh platform?

</p><p>The idea that you can be 100\% secure now and in the future without 100\% control over what is put on your machine is crazy.

</p><p>Are their written contractual agreements holding a proprietary company responsible for the financial loss to the bank if a hole in their hardware/software is exploited?  Do any banks use them?  Do any proprietary companies allow for them, my guess is no.  These types of agreements were common in the telco industry where the fines could reach into the millions for outages.  With billing providers, financial loss clauses were also common.  However outside of that industry I am not aware of similar contractual practices, especially with proprietary software and hardware vendors.

</p><p>I remind myself that some overseas countries threatened to stop buying MS OS products if the company did not un bundle IE from the OS; result they unbundled IE in order for their software product to be made available for purchase for government entities.

</p><p>I doubt that banks would have the same backbone to stand up to most proprietary companies, which would be required in order to effect change.  No I think banks are just cheap and lazy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they ( banks ) are as lazy and even cheaper than many corporations today .
If they can hire cheaper labor they will ( and they do ) ; expecting this cheaper labor to know about exploits ; have time to learn about exploits ; or to use their free time to learn about exploits in order to thwart and prevent them is a bit much .
Do not assume because you care and take the time to look at the code of every patch you download and install on your PC that others do .
( Besides by definition , only open source users have even the potential to go through the code and look for suspicious code , not that many do ) .Time is money.You get what you pay for .
And if you want quality security , quality applications , quality people ; you MUST give them the time to learn about the exploits .
Give them time to test the update , upgrade , patch before rolling it out to the general population .
How many of you , responsible for this task at your business , are not given adequate time to use and test a new release before rolling it out to the general population ?
My guess is more than 95 \ % are not given the time as their boss simply expects the upgrade , update , patch to have been sufficiently tested , checked and verified okay , thus why give any of his employees to do it again .
Never mind that your environment ( network , software , hardware , etc ) is most likely a little different than those releasing the patch , update , upgrade .
And remember , IE and Active X gives the user a richer experience with the banks website ( pun intended ) I also thought there were laws on the books in the United States governing security for banks specifically .
To protect and keep safe the pipes between financial institutions and therefore ensure secure transactions .
With the many break ins reported over the last two years it makes one wonder if the laws are inadequate ; or if the banks are ignoring the laws and installing software / hardware that is honestly NOT secure behind their firewall/routers .
or if the banks are taking the easier , cheaper way out , paying inexperienced people to install insecure and buggy software and hardware.Compliance might be overly expensive for banks.After all Microsoft only spent billions to secure a Windows Operating System ( not the OS you and I have access to ) for government use ONLY AFTER the US government threatened to remove Windows desktop operating systems from the acceptable to purchase BID list used by most government agencies .
I have not read about any similar edicts from the Federal Reserve , Banks in general or other financial institutions .
Thus banks have not given proprietary vendors the same incentive that the US Government gave Microsoft .
My guess is that the banks do not publicize these weaknesses as many do not have a viable solution .
And given the state of auto-updates , auto-downloads and forced updates and installs today , if a bank did secure their environment , they would NOT be able to maintain a secure environment as these forced updates are usually weekly and at least monthly .
I was on a site that updated daily , never bothered to check what they were updating every day , why look into a foolish practice in the first place.Note : not saying daily builds is foolish , just forcing users to update every day , without option not to is foolish.Are there any banks that are maintaining their own independent repositories for updates / downloads , thus not automatically accepting all the patches that are pushed down users throats by proprietary companies ?
Can you even do this with the Microsoft platform , prevent external update sources and have 100 \ % of all updates / upgrades performed from your internally tested secure repositories ?
I know you can do this with Unix and Linux .
But are any banks doing this , I know a few companies are .
Can you do this with the MacIntosh platform ?
The idea that you can be 100 \ % secure now and in the future without 100 \ % control over what is put on your machine is crazy .
Are their written contractual agreements holding a proprietary company responsible for the financial loss to the bank if a hole in their hardware/software is exploited ?
Do any banks use them ?
Do any proprietary companies allow for them , my guess is no .
These types of agreements were common in the telco industry where the fines could reach into the millions for outages .
With billing providers , financial loss clauses were also common .
However outside of that industry I am not aware of similar contractual practices , especially with proprietary software and hardware vendors .
I remind myself that some overseas countries threatened to stop buying MS OS products if the company did not un bundle IE from the OS ; result they unbundled IE in order for their software product to be made available for purchase for government entities .
I doubt that banks would have the same backbone to stand up to most proprietary companies , which would be required in order to effect change .
No I think banks are just cheap and lazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they (banks) are as lazy and even cheaper than many corporations today.
If they can hire cheaper labor they will (and they do); expecting this cheaper labor to know about exploits; have time to learn about exploits; or to use their free time to learn about exploits in order to thwart and prevent them is a bit much.
Do not assume because you care and take the time to look at the code of every patch you download and install on your PC that others do.
(Besides by definition, only open source users have even the potential to go through the code and look for suspicious code, not that many do).Time is money.You get what you pay for.
And if you want quality security, quality applications, quality people; you MUST give them the time to learn about the exploits.
Give them time to test the update, upgrade, patch before rolling it out to the general population.
How many of you, responsible for this task at your business, are not given adequate time to use and test a new release before rolling it out to the general population?
My guess is more than 95\% are not given the time as their boss simply expects the upgrade, update, patch to have been sufficiently tested, checked and verified okay, thus why give any of his employees to do it again.
Never mind that your environment (network, software, hardware, etc) is most likely a little different than those releasing the patch, update, upgrade.
And remember, IE and Active X gives the user a richer experience with the banks website (pun intended)

I also thought there were laws on the books in the United States governing security for banks specifically.
To protect and keep safe the pipes between financial institutions and therefore ensure secure transactions.
With the many break ins reported over the last two years it makes one wonder if the laws are inadequate; or if the banks are ignoring the laws and installing software / hardware that is honestly NOT secure behind their firewall/routers.
or if the banks are taking the easier, cheaper way out, paying inexperienced people to install insecure and buggy software and hardware.Compliance might be overly expensive for banks.After all Microsoft only spent billions to secure a Windows Operating System (not the OS you and I have access to) for government use ONLY AFTER the US government threatened to remove Windows desktop operating systems from the acceptable to purchase BID list used by most government agencies.
I have not read about any similar edicts from the Federal Reserve, Banks in general or other financial institutions.
Thus banks have not given proprietary vendors the same incentive that the US Government gave Microsoft.
My guess is that the banks do not publicize these weaknesses as many do not have a viable solution.
And given the state of auto-updates, auto-downloads and forced updates and installs today, if a bank did secure their environment, they would NOT be able to maintain a secure environment as these forced updates are usually weekly and at least monthly.
I was on a site that updated daily, never bothered to check what they were updating every day, why look into a foolish practice in the first place.Note: not saying daily builds is foolish, just forcing users to update every day, without option not to is foolish.Are there any banks that are maintaining their own independent repositories for updates / downloads, thus not automatically accepting all the patches that are pushed down users throats by proprietary companies?
Can you even do this with the Microsoft platform, prevent external update sources and have 100\% of all updates / upgrades performed from your internally tested secure repositories?
I know you can do this with Unix and Linux.
But are any banks doing this, I know a few companies are.
Can you do this with the MacIntosh platform?
The idea that you can be 100\% secure now and in the future without 100\% control over what is put on your machine is crazy.
Are their written contractual agreements holding a proprietary company responsible for the financial loss to the bank if a hole in their hardware/software is exploited?
Do any banks use them?
Do any proprietary companies allow for them, my guess is no.
These types of agreements were common in the telco industry where the fines could reach into the millions for outages.
With billing providers, financial loss clauses were also common.
However outside of that industry I am not aware of similar contractual practices, especially with proprietary software and hardware vendors.
I remind myself that some overseas countries threatened to stop buying MS OS products if the company did not un bundle IE from the OS; result they unbundled IE in order for their software product to be made available for purchase for government entities.
I doubt that banks would have the same backbone to stand up to most proprietary companies, which would be required in order to effect change.
No I think banks are just cheap and lazy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28609091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28609091</id>
	<title>Sometimes I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246985280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It makes me wonder why any financial institution would still design their websites to require Internet Explorer and/or Active X.  Seems sort of like putting up guide rails at a bowling alley and then expecting everyone to bowl gutter balls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It makes me wonder why any financial institution would still design their websites to require Internet Explorer and/or Active X. Seems sort of like putting up guide rails at a bowling alley and then expecting everyone to bowl gutter balls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It makes me wonder why any financial institution would still design their websites to require Internet Explorer and/or Active X.  Seems sort of like putting up guide rails at a bowling alley and then expecting everyone to bowl gutter balls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28610971</id>
	<title>Re:Isolate!</title>
	<author>AceofSpades19</author>
	<datestamp>1246992540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except the exploits actually get patched in a reasonable timeframe</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except the exploits actually get patched in a reasonable timeframe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except the exploits actually get patched in a reasonable timeframe</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28608313</id>
	<title>Active X...</title>
	<author>TriZz</author>
	<datestamp>1246982160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...will soon be added to the Thesaurus as a synonym of "Vulnerability".</htmltext>
<tokenext>...will soon be added to the Thesaurus as a synonym of " Vulnerability " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...will soon be added to the Thesaurus as a synonym of "Vulnerability".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28609571</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm...</title>
	<author>stevied</author>
	<datestamp>1246986960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If IE and Firefox were both using Sun's JVM (which I imagine they were), perhaps it was the JVM's security settings that got changed? That's my best guess for that one.<br><br>Because IE is almost always shipped with Windows, other apps often use its rendering engine to display HTML - they might be also be vulnerable if they use it to display untrusted content. The advisory mentioned the Outlook Express isn't vulnerable in its default configuration because of its use of IE's "zones" feature, but that does rather imply that it, and other apps, might be vulnerable in certain circumstances.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If IE and Firefox were both using Sun 's JVM ( which I imagine they were ) , perhaps it was the JVM 's security settings that got changed ?
That 's my best guess for that one.Because IE is almost always shipped with Windows , other apps often use its rendering engine to display HTML - they might be also be vulnerable if they use it to display untrusted content .
The advisory mentioned the Outlook Express is n't vulnerable in its default configuration because of its use of IE 's " zones " feature , but that does rather imply that it , and other apps , might be vulnerable in certain circumstances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If IE and Firefox were both using Sun's JVM (which I imagine they were), perhaps it was the JVM's security settings that got changed?
That's my best guess for that one.Because IE is almost always shipped with Windows, other apps often use its rendering engine to display HTML - they might be also be vulnerable if they use it to display untrusted content.
The advisory mentioned the Outlook Express isn't vulnerable in its default configuration because of its use of IE's "zones" feature, but that does rather imply that it, and other apps, might be vulnerable in certain circumstances.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28608175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607871</id>
	<title>couldn't microsoft</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1246980420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just warn us when they have found no exploits at all?</p><p>meanwhile, we would just assume the default status is that everything is exploitable</p><p>it would cut down on the announcements by an order of magnitude</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just warn us when they have found no exploits at all ? meanwhile , we would just assume the default status is that everything is exploitableit would cut down on the announcements by an order of magnitude</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just warn us when they have found no exploits at all?meanwhile, we would just assume the default status is that everything is exploitableit would cut down on the announcements by an order of magnitude</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607295</id>
	<title>Re:Isolate!</title>
	<author>lorenlal</author>
	<datestamp>1246978320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to take a look at your market to distribute your virus too.  Sure, Opera might have more market share in Russia and the Ukraine, but it's still <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage\_share\_of\_web\_browsers" title="wikipedia.org">tiny</a> [wikipedia.org] overall.</p><p>By attacking IE only, you get 65\%, include Firefox, and you're staring at 87\% of the browsers in total use.  You could target certain countries if you wanted to, but for most malware writers it's pure numbers, and it doesn't matter where they come from.  I don't know if Opera is designed/written any better... but I can reasonably assume that it's not being targeted as intensely as IE/FF.  I'm not taking my hat off to them until they lock down enough worldwide market share to become worthy of being targeted.</p><p>I totally agree that the browser shouldn't be so integrated with the operating system.  As a rule, we all know that you don't put yourself out on the public internet...  Why have a utility that's part of the OS reach out and grab stuff from there?  But don't get me started on virtualization.  If we want all the flash and trash we ask for, then virtualization isn't going to deliver it yet... unless you're planning on including all the funny gadgets in a virtual OS.  We don't do it already because the products (that I've evaluated) don't do this sort of thing well at all yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to take a look at your market to distribute your virus too .
Sure , Opera might have more market share in Russia and the Ukraine , but it 's still tiny [ wikipedia.org ] overall.By attacking IE only , you get 65 \ % , include Firefox , and you 're staring at 87 \ % of the browsers in total use .
You could target certain countries if you wanted to , but for most malware writers it 's pure numbers , and it does n't matter where they come from .
I do n't know if Opera is designed/written any better... but I can reasonably assume that it 's not being targeted as intensely as IE/FF .
I 'm not taking my hat off to them until they lock down enough worldwide market share to become worthy of being targeted.I totally agree that the browser should n't be so integrated with the operating system .
As a rule , we all know that you do n't put yourself out on the public internet... Why have a utility that 's part of the OS reach out and grab stuff from there ?
But do n't get me started on virtualization .
If we want all the flash and trash we ask for , then virtualization is n't going to deliver it yet... unless you 're planning on including all the funny gadgets in a virtual OS .
We do n't do it already because the products ( that I 've evaluated ) do n't do this sort of thing well at all yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to take a look at your market to distribute your virus too.
Sure, Opera might have more market share in Russia and the Ukraine, but it's still tiny [wikipedia.org] overall.By attacking IE only, you get 65\%, include Firefox, and you're staring at 87\% of the browsers in total use.
You could target certain countries if you wanted to, but for most malware writers it's pure numbers, and it doesn't matter where they come from.
I don't know if Opera is designed/written any better... but I can reasonably assume that it's not being targeted as intensely as IE/FF.
I'm not taking my hat off to them until they lock down enough worldwide market share to become worthy of being targeted.I totally agree that the browser shouldn't be so integrated with the operating system.
As a rule, we all know that you don't put yourself out on the public internet...  Why have a utility that's part of the OS reach out and grab stuff from there?
But don't get me started on virtualization.
If we want all the flash and trash we ask for, then virtualization isn't going to deliver it yet... unless you're planning on including all the funny gadgets in a virtual OS.
We don't do it already because the products (that I've evaluated) don't do this sort of thing well at all yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28611491</id>
	<title>Re:better workaround</title>
	<author>TheNetAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1246994520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even better, use freaking Windows Update and install IE8, fixed...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even better , use freaking Windows Update and install IE8 , fixed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even better, use freaking Windows Update and install IE8, fixed...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607051</id>
	<title>Oh well.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246977420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>affecting IE users on XP</p></div><p>Good thing none of them read Slashdot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>affecting IE users on XPGood thing none of them read Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>affecting IE users on XPGood thing none of them read Slashdot.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28610331</id>
	<title>Time distortion</title>
	<author>HomelessInLaJolla</author>
	<datestamp>1246990260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the media release admonishes that malicious attackers have been exploiting a flaw for nearly a week the real indication is that the core of the obfuscated code community has been exploiting it for far longer--probably since the day the vulnerable snippet of code was introduced.  I will not tarry to read the full article and look at all of the related references but the summary indicates ActiveX on XP or server '03.  Unless this is a relatively new addition to the AX library of functions you can rest assured that the vulnerability has been exploited since the day the software was shipped.</p><p>When you install an OS such as Debian, or LFS, or Ubuntu, or Slack, or RH, or Mandrake, or any of the BSD flavors, you become familiar with the concept of dependencies--either to compile from source or to install a package.  Vulnerabilities are no different.  Vulnerabilities have dependencies and, once all of the requisite dependencies are in place, then the vulnerability is available.  Just as the installer of a source compilation or a package knows exactly when the dependencies are fulfilled and the program is available so too do the core researchers know almost immediately when the dependencies for a vulnerability have been fulfilled.  Oftentimes those who have been writing and maintaining apps for a particular kernel and core set of libraries may even see the possibility for an exploit within their program but think to themselves,"Yeah, that portion could be exploited, but this-and-that-and-these aren't available and an attacker would need to figure out a way to inject executable bytecode into the stack using this hole, if they could get to it, and to do that they would need to know the user's particular kernel and libc, possibly shell and memory configuration, and they can't get that info through this opening."  Then, two or three months later, some enormous library conglomerate, possibly within the environmental (gnome/qt/kde/etc) infrastructure becomes available, and \_bing\_, all of the dependencies to make the vulnerability a viable vector for exploit have been fulfilled.</p><p>This has long been the dichotomy between making an OS usable for the general population and maintaining it in a secure fashion.  This is why I have always chosen X window managers which have been relatively bare bones (ude/blackbox/e16) and tried to minimize GUI dependency and remain at the shell/CLI interface.  Automation and full integration within the OS is good for the general users but it also quickly fills all of the spaces between the lines of security; fulfilling and satisfying all of the dependencies for vulnerabilities.  This was my major admonishment even as early as Win95--though at the time I was (and still largely am) ridiculed by those who want to have the features of computer use and appear computer knowledgeable but also want the ease of an OS that demands very little effort of learning from them.</p><p>All of that is relatively superficial, obviously, when you take those considerations to full completion.  The exact same principle applied ten or twenty years ago.  The exploitable software of ten or twenty years ago became solidified and standardized and those functions have now been made to be performed at the hardware level in the bridge chips and bus controllers.  Those hackers (and crackers) who were the laser eyed math and logic geeks playing kernel/core wars ten and twenty years ago still know where those exploitable pathways are and, if they can (and believe me, they definitely can) find a way to executable memory from an exploitable codec or your web browser, they can own your exectuable memory space.  They don't own it to bring your system down or to make it unusable, they own it to feed vast databases of information.  Information is profiled, stored, categorized, and indexed in much the same way as the "warrantless" wiretapping we heard about several years ago.  The government does not put active agents on every line: they screen the line through voice recognition systems which listen for key words and phrases.  The</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the media release admonishes that malicious attackers have been exploiting a flaw for nearly a week the real indication is that the core of the obfuscated code community has been exploiting it for far longer--probably since the day the vulnerable snippet of code was introduced .
I will not tarry to read the full article and look at all of the related references but the summary indicates ActiveX on XP or server '03 .
Unless this is a relatively new addition to the AX library of functions you can rest assured that the vulnerability has been exploited since the day the software was shipped.When you install an OS such as Debian , or LFS , or Ubuntu , or Slack , or RH , or Mandrake , or any of the BSD flavors , you become familiar with the concept of dependencies--either to compile from source or to install a package .
Vulnerabilities are no different .
Vulnerabilities have dependencies and , once all of the requisite dependencies are in place , then the vulnerability is available .
Just as the installer of a source compilation or a package knows exactly when the dependencies are fulfilled and the program is available so too do the core researchers know almost immediately when the dependencies for a vulnerability have been fulfilled .
Oftentimes those who have been writing and maintaining apps for a particular kernel and core set of libraries may even see the possibility for an exploit within their program but think to themselves , " Yeah , that portion could be exploited , but this-and-that-and-these are n't available and an attacker would need to figure out a way to inject executable bytecode into the stack using this hole , if they could get to it , and to do that they would need to know the user 's particular kernel and libc , possibly shell and memory configuration , and they ca n't get that info through this opening .
" Then , two or three months later , some enormous library conglomerate , possibly within the environmental ( gnome/qt/kde/etc ) infrastructure becomes available , and \ _bing \ _ , all of the dependencies to make the vulnerability a viable vector for exploit have been fulfilled.This has long been the dichotomy between making an OS usable for the general population and maintaining it in a secure fashion .
This is why I have always chosen X window managers which have been relatively bare bones ( ude/blackbox/e16 ) and tried to minimize GUI dependency and remain at the shell/CLI interface .
Automation and full integration within the OS is good for the general users but it also quickly fills all of the spaces between the lines of security ; fulfilling and satisfying all of the dependencies for vulnerabilities .
This was my major admonishment even as early as Win95--though at the time I was ( and still largely am ) ridiculed by those who want to have the features of computer use and appear computer knowledgeable but also want the ease of an OS that demands very little effort of learning from them.All of that is relatively superficial , obviously , when you take those considerations to full completion .
The exact same principle applied ten or twenty years ago .
The exploitable software of ten or twenty years ago became solidified and standardized and those functions have now been made to be performed at the hardware level in the bridge chips and bus controllers .
Those hackers ( and crackers ) who were the laser eyed math and logic geeks playing kernel/core wars ten and twenty years ago still know where those exploitable pathways are and , if they can ( and believe me , they definitely can ) find a way to executable memory from an exploitable codec or your web browser , they can own your exectuable memory space .
They do n't own it to bring your system down or to make it unusable , they own it to feed vast databases of information .
Information is profiled , stored , categorized , and indexed in much the same way as the " warrantless " wiretapping we heard about several years ago .
The government does not put active agents on every line : they screen the line through voice recognition systems which listen for key words and phrases .
The</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the media release admonishes that malicious attackers have been exploiting a flaw for nearly a week the real indication is that the core of the obfuscated code community has been exploiting it for far longer--probably since the day the vulnerable snippet of code was introduced.
I will not tarry to read the full article and look at all of the related references but the summary indicates ActiveX on XP or server '03.
Unless this is a relatively new addition to the AX library of functions you can rest assured that the vulnerability has been exploited since the day the software was shipped.When you install an OS such as Debian, or LFS, or Ubuntu, or Slack, or RH, or Mandrake, or any of the BSD flavors, you become familiar with the concept of dependencies--either to compile from source or to install a package.
Vulnerabilities are no different.
Vulnerabilities have dependencies and, once all of the requisite dependencies are in place, then the vulnerability is available.
Just as the installer of a source compilation or a package knows exactly when the dependencies are fulfilled and the program is available so too do the core researchers know almost immediately when the dependencies for a vulnerability have been fulfilled.
Oftentimes those who have been writing and maintaining apps for a particular kernel and core set of libraries may even see the possibility for an exploit within their program but think to themselves,"Yeah, that portion could be exploited, but this-and-that-and-these aren't available and an attacker would need to figure out a way to inject executable bytecode into the stack using this hole, if they could get to it, and to do that they would need to know the user's particular kernel and libc, possibly shell and memory configuration, and they can't get that info through this opening.
"  Then, two or three months later, some enormous library conglomerate, possibly within the environmental (gnome/qt/kde/etc) infrastructure becomes available, and \_bing\_, all of the dependencies to make the vulnerability a viable vector for exploit have been fulfilled.This has long been the dichotomy between making an OS usable for the general population and maintaining it in a secure fashion.
This is why I have always chosen X window managers which have been relatively bare bones (ude/blackbox/e16) and tried to minimize GUI dependency and remain at the shell/CLI interface.
Automation and full integration within the OS is good for the general users but it also quickly fills all of the spaces between the lines of security; fulfilling and satisfying all of the dependencies for vulnerabilities.
This was my major admonishment even as early as Win95--though at the time I was (and still largely am) ridiculed by those who want to have the features of computer use and appear computer knowledgeable but also want the ease of an OS that demands very little effort of learning from them.All of that is relatively superficial, obviously, when you take those considerations to full completion.
The exact same principle applied ten or twenty years ago.
The exploitable software of ten or twenty years ago became solidified and standardized and those functions have now been made to be performed at the hardware level in the bridge chips and bus controllers.
Those hackers (and crackers) who were the laser eyed math and logic geeks playing kernel/core wars ten and twenty years ago still know where those exploitable pathways are and, if they can (and believe me, they definitely can) find a way to executable memory from an exploitable codec or your web browser, they can own your exectuable memory space.
They don't own it to bring your system down or to make it unusable, they own it to feed vast databases of information.
Information is profiled, stored, categorized, and indexed in much the same way as the "warrantless" wiretapping we heard about several years ago.
The government does not put active agents on every line: they screen the line through voice recognition systems which listen for key words and phrases.
The</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28610239</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246989780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone else think that Microsoft Fix-It thing is an interface failure.</p><p>Two big buttons that say "Fix It", but if you don't look hard enough one of them removes the fix.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone else think that Microsoft Fix-It thing is an interface failure.Two big buttons that say " Fix It " , but if you do n't look hard enough one of them removes the fix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone else think that Microsoft Fix-It thing is an interface failure.Two big buttons that say "Fix It", but if you don't look hard enough one of them removes the fix.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28611465</id>
	<title>Re:Isolate!</title>
	<author>TheNetAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1246994460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> totally agree that the browser shouldn't be so integrated with the operating system. As a rule, we all know that you don't put yourself out on the public internet... </i></p><p>This is why IE was severed from the OS in Vista and Win7.  In Vista, it plays no role in anyting but browsing or being called by 3rd party applications and still it remains a  protected process with reduced security access.</p><p>It no longer runs in conjunction with Explorer or has any OS level ties as it did in XP. (This is why Web Destkop was also removed from Vista, as IE was separated from the OS and OS processes like Explorer, etc.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>totally agree that the browser should n't be so integrated with the operating system .
As a rule , we all know that you do n't put yourself out on the public internet... This is why IE was severed from the OS in Vista and Win7 .
In Vista , it plays no role in anyting but browsing or being called by 3rd party applications and still it remains a protected process with reduced security access.It no longer runs in conjunction with Explorer or has any OS level ties as it did in XP .
( This is why Web Destkop was also removed from Vista , as IE was separated from the OS and OS processes like Explorer , etc .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext> totally agree that the browser shouldn't be so integrated with the operating system.
As a rule, we all know that you don't put yourself out on the public internet... This is why IE was severed from the OS in Vista and Win7.
In Vista, it plays no role in anyting but browsing or being called by 3rd party applications and still it remains a  protected process with reduced security access.It no longer runs in conjunction with Explorer or has any OS level ties as it did in XP.
(This is why Web Destkop was also removed from Vista, as IE was separated from the OS and OS processes like Explorer, etc.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607145</id>
	<title>Fixes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246977780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Luckily Microsoft reports there is a fix for this, Windows 7 is nearly here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Luckily Microsoft reports there is a fix for this , Windows 7 is nearly here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Luckily Microsoft reports there is a fix for this, Windows 7 is nearly here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607361</id>
	<title>Re:Isolate!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246978560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that, by default, a webpage in IE can create an instance of any of the myriad ActiveX controls and COM objects present on your PC.  If any one of these has a buffer overflow, you can be hacked.</p><p>The fix is simple: use the whitelist feature ("Administrator approved controls") that has been in IE forever.  If you do this the vast majority of IE hacks won't affect you.  Any admin who still supports IE and doesn't use whitelisting deserves a beating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that , by default , a webpage in IE can create an instance of any of the myriad ActiveX controls and COM objects present on your PC .
If any one of these has a buffer overflow , you can be hacked.The fix is simple : use the whitelist feature ( " Administrator approved controls " ) that has been in IE forever .
If you do this the vast majority of IE hacks wo n't affect you .
Any admin who still supports IE and does n't use whitelisting deserves a beating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that, by default, a webpage in IE can create an instance of any of the myriad ActiveX controls and COM objects present on your PC.
If any one of these has a buffer overflow, you can be hacked.The fix is simple: use the whitelist feature ("Administrator approved controls") that has been in IE forever.
If you do this the vast majority of IE hacks won't affect you.
Any admin who still supports IE and doesn't use whitelisting deserves a beating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28609623</id>
	<title>Re:couldn't microsoft</title>
	<author>that IT girl</author>
	<datestamp>1246987140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is modded "funny"... it should probably be "insightful" or "informative".<br>Pity there's no +1 Amen, Brotha.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is modded " funny " ... it should probably be " insightful " or " informative " .Pity there 's no + 1 Amen , Brotha .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is modded "funny"... it should probably be "insightful" or "informative".Pity there's no +1 Amen, Brotha.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607437</id>
	<title>Re:Isolate!</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1246978860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who is it that you imagine would benefit from <em>reporting</em> vulnerabilities in Opera?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is it that you imagine would benefit from reporting vulnerabilities in Opera ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is it that you imagine would benefit from reporting vulnerabilities in Opera?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607351</id>
	<title>Re:Isolate!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246978560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, I'm willing to bet Opera has more than a few vulnerabilities considering how often it crashes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , I 'm willing to bet Opera has more than a few vulnerabilities considering how often it crashes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, I'm willing to bet Opera has more than a few vulnerabilities considering how often it crashes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28612825</id>
	<title>Re:Isolate!</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1246999620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but frankly that makes for an incredibly sucky web experience</p></div><p>It is actually not so bad all things considered. Most of us tend to visit the same groups of sites most of the time so once the whitelist script permissions are dialed in one very rarely needs to touch NoScript again and even then the interface with FireFox is easy to use with the notification and task bars available for right click permission tweaking. Other plugins can also be combined with NoScript for even more fine grained control. For example I like to use Adblock Plus, NoScript, and Flashblock in combination so that I can eliminate ads, get per-domain scripting permissions, and case by case loading of flash objects. The addon framework in FireFox is really second to none; no other browser has more customizable addons or does them better than FireFox.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but frankly that makes for an incredibly sucky web experienceIt is actually not so bad all things considered .
Most of us tend to visit the same groups of sites most of the time so once the whitelist script permissions are dialed in one very rarely needs to touch NoScript again and even then the interface with FireFox is easy to use with the notification and task bars available for right click permission tweaking .
Other plugins can also be combined with NoScript for even more fine grained control .
For example I like to use Adblock Plus , NoScript , and Flashblock in combination so that I can eliminate ads , get per-domain scripting permissions , and case by case loading of flash objects .
The addon framework in FireFox is really second to none ; no other browser has more customizable addons or does them better than FireFox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but frankly that makes for an incredibly sucky web experienceIt is actually not so bad all things considered.
Most of us tend to visit the same groups of sites most of the time so once the whitelist script permissions are dialed in one very rarely needs to touch NoScript again and even then the interface with FireFox is easy to use with the notification and task bars available for right click permission tweaking.
Other plugins can also be combined with NoScript for even more fine grained control.
For example I like to use Adblock Plus, NoScript, and Flashblock in combination so that I can eliminate ads, get per-domain scripting permissions, and case by case loading of flash objects.
The addon framework in FireFox is really second to none; no other browser has more customizable addons or does them better than FireFox.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607013</id>
	<title>Isolate!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246977240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once again the problem here is too tight integration with other part's of the OS. Yeah, IE is the most used browser and as such a major target for exploits, but some separation from other parts of OS wouldn't do any harm. Or atleast make it optional to use such; You won't be automatically affected by Flash or PDF exploits if you choosed not to install those. Just another reason to use alternate browsers like <a href="http://www.opera.com/" title="opera.com">Opera</a> [opera.com] or <a href="http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/" title="mozilla.com">Firefox</a> [mozilla.com], seeing it only affects IE users.</p><p>That being said, you dont need admin priviledges for some malware to do its job, botnets and such easily run within user priviledges aswell. Funnily, this issue is exactly the same in Linux and Mac OS too, which their users always seem to forget and go about how malware couldn't get the admin rights. <b>They dont need it.</b></p><p>The fun thing is, there always seem to come exploits for IE and Firefox. Very rarely for Opera. That makes me think they've made some good fundamental decisions on design and programming and know how to secure code from exploits, specially because <a href="http://my.opera.com/dstorey/blog/2009/03/16/a-look-at-desktop-market-share-cis-edition" title="opera.com">they have <b>major</b> marketshare (better than IE actually) in CIS countries like Russia and Ukraine</a> [opera.com] and you would be thinking the local hackers would be trying to break it apart and exploit every possible thing on it. Hats off to them, really.</p><p>With these ages, isolating browser from the OS and even virtualizing it in its own environment that's cleaned when browser is closed starts to be a must, and I dont really see why they aren't doing it already. It would save people from so many trouble, and wouldn't affect performance at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again the problem here is too tight integration with other part 's of the OS .
Yeah , IE is the most used browser and as such a major target for exploits , but some separation from other parts of OS would n't do any harm .
Or atleast make it optional to use such ; You wo n't be automatically affected by Flash or PDF exploits if you choosed not to install those .
Just another reason to use alternate browsers like Opera [ opera.com ] or Firefox [ mozilla.com ] , seeing it only affects IE users.That being said , you dont need admin priviledges for some malware to do its job , botnets and such easily run within user priviledges aswell .
Funnily , this issue is exactly the same in Linux and Mac OS too , which their users always seem to forget and go about how malware could n't get the admin rights .
They dont need it.The fun thing is , there always seem to come exploits for IE and Firefox .
Very rarely for Opera .
That makes me think they 've made some good fundamental decisions on design and programming and know how to secure code from exploits , specially because they have major marketshare ( better than IE actually ) in CIS countries like Russia and Ukraine [ opera.com ] and you would be thinking the local hackers would be trying to break it apart and exploit every possible thing on it .
Hats off to them , really.With these ages , isolating browser from the OS and even virtualizing it in its own environment that 's cleaned when browser is closed starts to be a must , and I dont really see why they are n't doing it already .
It would save people from so many trouble , and would n't affect performance at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again the problem here is too tight integration with other part's of the OS.
Yeah, IE is the most used browser and as such a major target for exploits, but some separation from other parts of OS wouldn't do any harm.
Or atleast make it optional to use such; You won't be automatically affected by Flash or PDF exploits if you choosed not to install those.
Just another reason to use alternate browsers like Opera [opera.com] or Firefox [mozilla.com], seeing it only affects IE users.That being said, you dont need admin priviledges for some malware to do its job, botnets and such easily run within user priviledges aswell.
Funnily, this issue is exactly the same in Linux and Mac OS too, which their users always seem to forget and go about how malware couldn't get the admin rights.
They dont need it.The fun thing is, there always seem to come exploits for IE and Firefox.
Very rarely for Opera.
That makes me think they've made some good fundamental decisions on design and programming and know how to secure code from exploits, specially because they have major marketshare (better than IE actually) in CIS countries like Russia and Ukraine [opera.com] and you would be thinking the local hackers would be trying to break it apart and exploit every possible thing on it.
Hats off to them, really.With these ages, isolating browser from the OS and even virtualizing it in its own environment that's cleaned when browser is closed starts to be a must, and I dont really see why they aren't doing it already.
It would save people from so many trouble, and wouldn't affect performance at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28608175</id>
	<title>Hmm...</title>
	<author>that IT girl</author>
	<datestamp>1246981740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does bring one question to my mind, though. In our office we have been told not to upgrade to IE7, though a few people "accidentally" did anyway. On their machines, even if they use Firefox, the security/Internet settings that IE7 made carry over to Firefox and affect it. One example is a certain java applet we have to access here that wouldn't even work in FF after my coworker upgraded. I had to go in and change settings in IE for it to work in either browser. I didn't upgrade and I'll admit my knowledge is a bit fuzzy in this area, so I haven't really looked into this too much, but... If a vulnerability can use IE to get into the OS, couldn't it do so even if you haven't opened IE yourself?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does bring one question to my mind , though .
In our office we have been told not to upgrade to IE7 , though a few people " accidentally " did anyway .
On their machines , even if they use Firefox , the security/Internet settings that IE7 made carry over to Firefox and affect it .
One example is a certain java applet we have to access here that would n't even work in FF after my coworker upgraded .
I had to go in and change settings in IE for it to work in either browser .
I did n't upgrade and I 'll admit my knowledge is a bit fuzzy in this area , so I have n't really looked into this too much , but... If a vulnerability can use IE to get into the OS , could n't it do so even if you have n't opened IE yourself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does bring one question to my mind, though.
In our office we have been told not to upgrade to IE7, though a few people "accidentally" did anyway.
On their machines, even if they use Firefox, the security/Internet settings that IE7 made carry over to Firefox and affect it.
One example is a certain java applet we have to access here that wouldn't even work in FF after my coworker upgraded.
I had to go in and change settings in IE for it to work in either browser.
I didn't upgrade and I'll admit my knowledge is a bit fuzzy in this area, so I haven't really looked into this too much, but... If a vulnerability can use IE to get into the OS, couldn't it do so even if you haven't opened IE yourself?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607593</id>
	<title>But...</title>
	<author>goobermaster</author>
	<datestamp>1246979460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>But BonziBuddy told me that ActiveX was working perfectly!

How can a purple monkey that helps me to remember all my credit card numbers lie???</htmltext>
<tokenext>But BonziBuddy told me that ActiveX was working perfectly !
How can a purple monkey that helps me to remember all my credit card numbers lie ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But BonziBuddy told me that ActiveX was working perfectly!
How can a purple monkey that helps me to remember all my credit card numbers lie??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607167</id>
	<title>Re:Oh well.</title>
	<author>Omniscient Lurker</author>
	<datestamp>1246977840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They do at work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do at work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do at work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607157</id>
	<title>Sarah Palin Post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246977780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out," she said.</p><p>There is no "Department of Law" at the White House.</p><p><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=8016906&amp;page=2" title="go.com" rel="nofollow">this bitch is retarded</a> [go.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I think on a national level , your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we 've been charged with and automatically throw them out , " she said.There is no " Department of Law " at the White House.this bitch is retarded [ go.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out," she said.There is no "Department of Law" at the White House.this bitch is retarded [go.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28610669</id>
	<title>On the plus side</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1246991520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"It's Better with Windows"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/snark</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's Better with Windows " /snark</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's Better with Windows" /snark</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28611171</id>
	<title>Re:Oh well.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246993380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of us do like to read<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. from work tho. <br>
&nbsp; <br>(where we've tried to get away from IE6, but IT won't let us... grumble grumble)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of us do like to read / .
from work tho .
  ( where we 've tried to get away from IE6 , but IT wo n't let us... grumble grumble )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of us do like to read /.
from work tho.
  (where we've tried to get away from IE6, but IT won't let us... grumble grumble)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28611017</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm...</title>
	<author>AceofSpades19</author>
	<datestamp>1246992720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do people in your office have admin privileges to the computers there?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do people in your office have admin privileges to the computers there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do people in your office have admin privileges to the computers there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28608175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607439</id>
	<title>Re:Isolate!</title>
	<author>abigsmurf</author>
	<datestamp>1246978860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm getting as many virus alerts through Firefox now as I used to get through IE before I switched, most of them seem to be flash and pdf exploits but I've had a few occur that don't appear to be either.

Yes you could potentially make Firefox safer with noscript etc. but frankly that makes for an incredibly sucky web experience (and you could turn of scripting, flash and activeX in IE too with similar results).

The rise in Firefox targeted (or partially targeted) exploits, in my personal experience, has risen almost in direct proportion to the browser's popularity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm getting as many virus alerts through Firefox now as I used to get through IE before I switched , most of them seem to be flash and pdf exploits but I 've had a few occur that do n't appear to be either .
Yes you could potentially make Firefox safer with noscript etc .
but frankly that makes for an incredibly sucky web experience ( and you could turn of scripting , flash and activeX in IE too with similar results ) .
The rise in Firefox targeted ( or partially targeted ) exploits , in my personal experience , has risen almost in direct proportion to the browser 's popularity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm getting as many virus alerts through Firefox now as I used to get through IE before I switched, most of them seem to be flash and pdf exploits but I've had a few occur that don't appear to be either.
Yes you could potentially make Firefox safer with noscript etc.
but frankly that makes for an incredibly sucky web experience (and you could turn of scripting, flash and activeX in IE too with similar results).
The rise in Firefox targeted (or partially targeted) exploits, in my personal experience, has risen almost in direct proportion to the browser's popularity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28610673</id>
	<title>actual fix</title>
	<author>prozaker</author>
	<datestamp>1246991520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fix installs firefox<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:o</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fix installs firefox : o</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fix installs firefox :o</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607369</id>
	<title>Workaround? That's a fix!</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1246978620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering how much of a security problem ActiveX is, I consider the workaround (i.e. disabling ActiveX) a very good final fix for the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering how much of a security problem ActiveX is , I consider the workaround ( i.e .
disabling ActiveX ) a very good final fix for the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering how much of a security problem ActiveX is, I consider the workaround (i.e.
disabling ActiveX) a very good final fix for the problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607359</id>
	<title>Not privately reported</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246978560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/984" title="securityfocus.com" rel="nofollow">Securityfocus</a> [securityfocus.com] has more details, including the secret identity of the 'private reporter'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Securityfocus [ securityfocus.com ] has more details , including the secret identity of the 'private reporter'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Securityfocus [securityfocus.com] has more details, including the secret identity of the 'private reporter'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607155</id>
	<title>This Just In:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246977780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>ActiveX has a vulnerability.

News at 11.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ActiveX has a vulnerability .
News at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ActiveX has a vulnerability.
News at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1254243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28626625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28609091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1254243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1254243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28608905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1254243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28618993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1254243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28609571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28608175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1254243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28619761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1254243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28610013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1254243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28611171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1254243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1254243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28611017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28608175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1254243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28611491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1254243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1254243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28698331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1254243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1254243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28612825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1254243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28611465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1254243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1254243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1254243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28610239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1254243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28610971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1254243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28608157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1254243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28609623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1254243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1254243.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28610239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28608157
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1254243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607897
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1254243.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28611171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607167
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1254243.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28698331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28610013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607439
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28612825
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28610971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607295
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28611465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607481
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1254243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28608175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28609571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28611017
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1254243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607689
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1254243.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28609623
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1254243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28610669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1254243.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607369
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1254243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28611491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28618993
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1254243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607155
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1254243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607359
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1254243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28609091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28626625
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1254243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28608905
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1254243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28608313
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1254243.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28619761
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1254243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1254243.28607593
</commentlist>
</conversation>
