<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_11_0053244</id>
	<title>Microsoft Plugs "Drive-By" and 14 Other Holes</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1257944820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"Microsoft today <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9140625/Microsoft\_plugs\_15\_holes\_including\_critical\_drive\_by\_bug">patched 15 vulnerabilities in Windows, Windows Server, Excel, and Word</a>, including one that will probably be exploited quickly by hackers. None affects Windows 7. Of today's 15 bugs, Microsoft tagged three 'critical' and the remaining 12  'important.' Experts agreed that users should focus on MS09-065 first and foremost. That update, which was ranked critical, affects all still-supported editions of Windows except Windows 7 and its server sibling, Windows Server 2008 R2. 'The Windows kernel vulnerability is going to take the cake,' said Andrew Storms, director of security operations at nCircle Network Security. 'The attack vector can be driven through Internet Explorer, and this is one of those instances where the user won't be notified or prompted. This is absolutely a drive-by attack scenario.' Richie Lai, the director of vulnerability research at security company Qualys, agreed. 'Anyone running IE [Internet Explorer] is at risk here, even though the flaw is not in the browser, but in the Win32k kernel mode driver.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Microsoft today patched 15 vulnerabilities in Windows , Windows Server , Excel , and Word , including one that will probably be exploited quickly by hackers .
None affects Windows 7 .
Of today 's 15 bugs , Microsoft tagged three 'critical ' and the remaining 12 'important .
' Experts agreed that users should focus on MS09-065 first and foremost .
That update , which was ranked critical , affects all still-supported editions of Windows except Windows 7 and its server sibling , Windows Server 2008 R2 .
'The Windows kernel vulnerability is going to take the cake, ' said Andrew Storms , director of security operations at nCircle Network Security .
'The attack vector can be driven through Internet Explorer , and this is one of those instances where the user wo n't be notified or prompted .
This is absolutely a drive-by attack scenario .
' Richie Lai , the director of vulnerability research at security company Qualys , agreed .
'Anyone running IE [ Internet Explorer ] is at risk here , even though the flaw is not in the browser , but in the Win32k kernel mode driver .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Microsoft today patched 15 vulnerabilities in Windows, Windows Server, Excel, and Word, including one that will probably be exploited quickly by hackers.
None affects Windows 7.
Of today's 15 bugs, Microsoft tagged three 'critical' and the remaining 12  'important.
' Experts agreed that users should focus on MS09-065 first and foremost.
That update, which was ranked critical, affects all still-supported editions of Windows except Windows 7 and its server sibling, Windows Server 2008 R2.
'The Windows kernel vulnerability is going to take the cake,' said Andrew Storms, director of security operations at nCircle Network Security.
'The attack vector can be driven through Internet Explorer, and this is one of those instances where the user won't be notified or prompted.
This is absolutely a drive-by attack scenario.
' Richie Lai, the director of vulnerability research at security company Qualys, agreed.
'Anyone running IE [Internet Explorer] is at risk here, even though the flaw is not in the browser, but in the Win32k kernel mode driver.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059038</id>
	<title>yohaa.us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257084840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<a href="http://www.yohaa.us/" title="yohaa.us" rel="nofollow">Yohaa</a> [yohaa.us] -</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yohaa [ yohaa.us ] -</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Yohaa [yohaa.us] -</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30062602</id>
	<title>Re:Yay, tight integration of browser with OS...</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1257100920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I understand: GDI functions are in the kernel for speed reasons - constantly switching to usermode just to draw things slows down the system.</p><p>Vista moved it into userspace, and lots of users complained about slowness.  Looking at the vulnerability details, this just gives you privilage elevation on Vista (and related servers), not remote code execution.</p><p>For Windows 7, MS moved GDI back into the kernel, with some redesign.  So they apparently fixed this issue when they returned GDI to user mode.</p><p>Again, just my understanding, could be wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I understand : GDI functions are in the kernel for speed reasons - constantly switching to usermode just to draw things slows down the system.Vista moved it into userspace , and lots of users complained about slowness .
Looking at the vulnerability details , this just gives you privilage elevation on Vista ( and related servers ) , not remote code execution.For Windows 7 , MS moved GDI back into the kernel , with some redesign .
So they apparently fixed this issue when they returned GDI to user mode.Again , just my understanding , could be wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I understand: GDI functions are in the kernel for speed reasons - constantly switching to usermode just to draw things slows down the system.Vista moved it into userspace, and lots of users complained about slowness.
Looking at the vulnerability details, this just gives you privilage elevation on Vista (and related servers), not remote code execution.For Windows 7, MS moved GDI back into the kernel, with some redesign.
So they apparently fixed this issue when they returned GDI to user mode.Again, just my understanding, could be wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30075570</id>
	<title>Re:It's Still Windows NOT TRUE on Where display is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258051860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"The only thing I can think of that runs in kernel mode in Windows and not in Linux is the graphics system -- which is why the screen flickers and changes resolutions slower in Linux and Windows tends to run full screen games and video better with DirectX, but it also rarely brings the system down... not that a system you can't get desired display output from is useful entirely."</b> - by Bacon Bits (926911) on Wednesday November 11, @09:20AM (#30059730)</p></div><p>Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, &amp; Windows 7's graphic subsystem is a PnP (plug &amp; play) design &amp; runs off of Direct X when using AERO, in USERMODE (RPL3/Ring 3), but as "Direct as Possible", due to DirectX 10-11 driving it, fast.</p><p>This design therefore, can install &amp; USE driver updates, immediately, &amp; without a reboot because of it, &amp; crashing the display engine doesn't "take down the whole show" anymore (not that it really EVER did, I always had good luck that way personally).</p><p>Funniest part is, they're returning to the original NT 3.x-3.51 design, running the graphical subsystem in usermode!</p><p>Windows VISTA/Server 2008/Windows7 now use-have the display engine/ GUI subsystem there in usermode again...</p><p>(GDI &amp; to an extent, Win32, subsystems IN KERNELMODE are where pre NT 4.x system took care of it there in KERNEL MODE on the first 2-3 versions (3.1, 3.5, &amp; 3.51) in kernel/OS core mode/RPL 0/Ring 0, as they did in USERMODE later NT 4.x - 2000/XP/Server 2003 which technically is more "unstable" or rather destabilizing, but the MS DDK templates &amp; WHQL lab testing saw to that &amp; we DO have stability in those GDI+Win32 subsystems also for graphic display)</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; Some "specifics/FYI" for ya... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The only thing I can think of that runs in kernel mode in Windows and not in Linux is the graphics system -- which is why the screen flickers and changes resolutions slower in Linux and Windows tends to run full screen games and video better with DirectX , but it also rarely brings the system down... not that a system you ca n't get desired display output from is useful entirely .
" - by Bacon Bits ( 926911 ) on Wednesday November 11 , @ 09 : 20AM ( # 30059730 ) Windows VISTA , Windows Server 2008 , &amp; Windows 7 's graphic subsystem is a PnP ( plug &amp; play ) design &amp; runs off of Direct X when using AERO , in USERMODE ( RPL3/Ring 3 ) , but as " Direct as Possible " , due to DirectX 10-11 driving it , fast.This design therefore , can install &amp; USE driver updates , immediately , &amp; without a reboot because of it , &amp; crashing the display engine does n't " take down the whole show " anymore ( not that it really EVER did , I always had good luck that way personally ) .Funniest part is , they 're returning to the original NT 3.x-3.51 design , running the graphical subsystem in usermode ! Windows VISTA/Server 2008/Windows7 now use-have the display engine/ GUI subsystem there in usermode again... ( GDI &amp; to an extent , Win32 , subsystems IN KERNELMODE are where pre NT 4.x system took care of it there in KERNEL MODE on the first 2-3 versions ( 3.1 , 3.5 , &amp; 3.51 ) in kernel/OS core mode/RPL 0/Ring 0 , as they did in USERMODE later NT 4.x - 2000/XP/Server 2003 which technically is more " unstable " or rather destabilizing , but the MS DDK templates &amp; WHQL lab testing saw to that &amp; we DO have stability in those GDI + Win32 subsystems also for graphic display ) APKP.S. = &gt; Some " specifics/FYI " for ya... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The only thing I can think of that runs in kernel mode in Windows and not in Linux is the graphics system -- which is why the screen flickers and changes resolutions slower in Linux and Windows tends to run full screen games and video better with DirectX, but it also rarely brings the system down... not that a system you can't get desired display output from is useful entirely.
" - by Bacon Bits (926911) on Wednesday November 11, @09:20AM (#30059730)Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, &amp; Windows 7's graphic subsystem is a PnP (plug &amp; play) design &amp; runs off of Direct X when using AERO, in USERMODE (RPL3/Ring 3), but as "Direct as Possible", due to DirectX 10-11 driving it, fast.This design therefore, can install &amp; USE driver updates, immediately, &amp; without a reboot because of it, &amp; crashing the display engine doesn't "take down the whole show" anymore (not that it really EVER did, I always had good luck that way personally).Funniest part is, they're returning to the original NT 3.x-3.51 design, running the graphical subsystem in usermode!Windows VISTA/Server 2008/Windows7 now use-have the display engine/ GUI subsystem there in usermode again...(GDI &amp; to an extent, Win32, subsystems IN KERNELMODE are where pre NT 4.x system took care of it there in KERNEL MODE on the first 2-3 versions (3.1, 3.5, &amp; 3.51) in kernel/OS core mode/RPL 0/Ring 0, as they did in USERMODE later NT 4.x - 2000/XP/Server 2003 which technically is more "unstable" or rather destabilizing, but the MS DDK templates &amp; WHQL lab testing saw to that &amp; we DO have stability in those GDI+Win32 subsystems also for graphic display)APKP.S.=&gt; Some "specifics/FYI" for ya... apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059040</id>
	<title>And the others?</title>
	<author>s1lverl0rd</author>
	<datestamp>1257084840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about the fourteen other fixes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the fourteen other fixes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the fourteen other fixes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30060542</id>
	<title>Re:Mac, Linux, anything but Microsoft</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1257092460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>snow leapard has been out for 2 months and service pack 2 has just been released. the fixes are for some pretty obvious stuff that should not have made it past QA like the Flash performance issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>snow leapard has been out for 2 months and service pack 2 has just been released .
the fixes are for some pretty obvious stuff that should not have made it past QA like the Flash performance issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>snow leapard has been out for 2 months and service pack 2 has just been released.
the fixes are for some pretty obvious stuff that should not have made it past QA like the Flash performance issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059748</id>
	<title>Re:Yay, tight integration of browser with OS...</title>
	<author>0ld\_d0g</author>
	<datestamp>1257088860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except, IE is in no way integrated with the NT kernel. You're just parsing words of a random spokesperson (who is most likely not even a programmer) to your benefit.</p><p>You see, there are these things called libraries which this thing called IE uses. Some of those libraries make calls into the kernel, like say.. rendering fonts with the right kerning and proper sub pixel anti-aliasing using the display driver.</p><p>If you start connecting the dots, I think it should be clear enough from here. Or do we need a car analogy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except , IE is in no way integrated with the NT kernel .
You 're just parsing words of a random spokesperson ( who is most likely not even a programmer ) to your benefit.You see , there are these things called libraries which this thing called IE uses .
Some of those libraries make calls into the kernel , like say.. rendering fonts with the right kerning and proper sub pixel anti-aliasing using the display driver.If you start connecting the dots , I think it should be clear enough from here .
Or do we need a car analogy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except, IE is in no way integrated with the NT kernel.
You're just parsing words of a random spokesperson (who is most likely not even a programmer) to your benefit.You see, there are these things called libraries which this thing called IE uses.
Some of those libraries make calls into the kernel, like say.. rendering fonts with the right kerning and proper sub pixel anti-aliasing using the display driver.If you start connecting the dots, I think it should be clear enough from here.
Or do we need a car analogy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059170</id>
	<title>Re:Yay, tight integration of browser with OS...</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1257085800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>"Anyone running IE [Internet Explorer] is at risk here, even though the flaw is not in the browser, but in the Win32k kernel mode driver."</p></div></blockquote><p>Anybody else think something is integrated with something else in a deeply, deeply wrong way here?</p></div><p>I most certainly do!  This is unfair!  When will Firefox and Opera have such privileged access to kernel space.  It results in a bad user experience when the Javascript code I slave over can only help you manage your user files, registry keys and kernel libraries <b>if</b> you're using IE.  <br> <br>

Yours truly,<br> <br>

Crafty McStealsYourShit</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Anyone running IE [ Internet Explorer ] is at risk here , even though the flaw is not in the browser , but in the Win32k kernel mode driver .
" Anybody else think something is integrated with something else in a deeply , deeply wrong way here ? I most certainly do !
This is unfair !
When will Firefox and Opera have such privileged access to kernel space .
It results in a bad user experience when the Javascript code I slave over can only help you manage your user files , registry keys and kernel libraries if you 're using IE .
Yours truly , Crafty McStealsYourShit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Anyone running IE [Internet Explorer] is at risk here, even though the flaw is not in the browser, but in the Win32k kernel mode driver.
"Anybody else think something is integrated with something else in a deeply, deeply wrong way here?I most certainly do!
This is unfair!
When will Firefox and Opera have such privileged access to kernel space.
It results in a bad user experience when the Javascript code I slave over can only help you manage your user files, registry keys and kernel libraries if you're using IE.
Yours truly, 

Crafty McStealsYourShit
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30060710</id>
	<title>Re:Yay, tight integration of browser with OS...</title>
	<author>bheer</author>
	<datestamp>1257093120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be deeply, deeply wrong if IE was the only way to get infected. <a href="http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2009/3191" title="vupen.com">The vulnerability</a> [vupen.com] is quite interesting -- it can be invoked by crafting a special Embedded OpenType (EOT) font file, which then exploits a vulnerability in kernel mode driver that parses font code. So you can be exploited using Microsoft Office, Wordpad -- anything that can display EOT-embedded fonts. All you have to do is open a document containing the offending font. Of course, IE is easy to exploit because all you need to do is put up a web page.</p><p>Note that Windows 7, in which most drivers are back in user space, is not vulnerable to this exploit. Killer reason to upgrade, imho. This is also the reason most video driver crashes don't crash Windows 7 -- the display is simply re-initialized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be deeply , deeply wrong if IE was the only way to get infected .
The vulnerability [ vupen.com ] is quite interesting -- it can be invoked by crafting a special Embedded OpenType ( EOT ) font file , which then exploits a vulnerability in kernel mode driver that parses font code .
So you can be exploited using Microsoft Office , Wordpad -- anything that can display EOT-embedded fonts .
All you have to do is open a document containing the offending font .
Of course , IE is easy to exploit because all you need to do is put up a web page.Note that Windows 7 , in which most drivers are back in user space , is not vulnerable to this exploit .
Killer reason to upgrade , imho .
This is also the reason most video driver crashes do n't crash Windows 7 -- the display is simply re-initialized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be deeply, deeply wrong if IE was the only way to get infected.
The vulnerability [vupen.com] is quite interesting -- it can be invoked by crafting a special Embedded OpenType (EOT) font file, which then exploits a vulnerability in kernel mode driver that parses font code.
So you can be exploited using Microsoft Office, Wordpad -- anything that can display EOT-embedded fonts.
All you have to do is open a document containing the offending font.
Of course, IE is easy to exploit because all you need to do is put up a web page.Note that Windows 7, in which most drivers are back in user space, is not vulnerable to this exploit.
Killer reason to upgrade, imho.
This is also the reason most video driver crashes don't crash Windows 7 -- the display is simply re-initialized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30065720</id>
	<title>Re:It's Still Windows</title>
	<author>Suiggy</author>
	<datestamp>1257070440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As of Windows Vista and in Windows Server 2008 and Windows 7, the graphics drivers are all user mode. When a graphics driver crashes on those systems, it doesn't bring the whole system down. The graphics driver gets restarted and you continue with your business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As of Windows Vista and in Windows Server 2008 and Windows 7 , the graphics drivers are all user mode .
When a graphics driver crashes on those systems , it does n't bring the whole system down .
The graphics driver gets restarted and you continue with your business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As of Windows Vista and in Windows Server 2008 and Windows 7, the graphics drivers are all user mode.
When a graphics driver crashes on those systems, it doesn't bring the whole system down.
The graphics driver gets restarted and you continue with your business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059002</id>
	<title>Hold me.</title>
	<author>fotoguzzi</author>
	<datestamp>1257084480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm scared!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm scared !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm scared!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059702</id>
	<title>Re:Yay, tight integration of browser with OS...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>According to Microsoft, the Windows kernel improperly parses Embedded OpenType (EOT) fonts, which are a compact form of fonts designed for use on Web pages.
</p></div><p>One question: Why is the kernel parsing fonts?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Microsoft , the Windows kernel improperly parses Embedded OpenType ( EOT ) fonts , which are a compact form of fonts designed for use on Web pages .
One question : Why is the kernel parsing fonts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to Microsoft, the Windows kernel improperly parses Embedded OpenType (EOT) fonts, which are a compact form of fonts designed for use on Web pages.
One question: Why is the kernel parsing fonts?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059278</id>
	<title>hole in their head</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257086520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>will they patch that one too?</p><p>When does SP4 come out for XP?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>will they patch that one too ? When does SP4 come out for XP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will they patch that one too?When does SP4 come out for XP?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30064020</id>
	<title>Re:Yay, tight integration of browser with OS...</title>
	<author>FreelanceWizard</author>
	<datestamp>1257106200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come now. If you, say, run the EOT plugin for Firefox from PDMS, FF can be used to exploit the vulnerability. Clearly the answer is to drive-by install that software to improve the l33t exploiter experience.</p><p>In all seriousness, the issue isn't that IE has access to the kernel, but that IE can request that an EOT font be rendered. Apparently, something about the EOT font rendering pipeline hits win32k.sys, and if that EOT font is properly constructed, it can cause remote code execution at that point. Any program that supports EOT can be used to exploit the vulnerability. Right now, though, the major program that supports it is IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come now .
If you , say , run the EOT plugin for Firefox from PDMS , FF can be used to exploit the vulnerability .
Clearly the answer is to drive-by install that software to improve the l33t exploiter experience.In all seriousness , the issue is n't that IE has access to the kernel , but that IE can request that an EOT font be rendered .
Apparently , something about the EOT font rendering pipeline hits win32k.sys , and if that EOT font is properly constructed , it can cause remote code execution at that point .
Any program that supports EOT can be used to exploit the vulnerability .
Right now , though , the major program that supports it is IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come now.
If you, say, run the EOT plugin for Firefox from PDMS, FF can be used to exploit the vulnerability.
Clearly the answer is to drive-by install that software to improve the l33t exploiter experience.In all seriousness, the issue isn't that IE has access to the kernel, but that IE can request that an EOT font be rendered.
Apparently, something about the EOT font rendering pipeline hits win32k.sys, and if that EOT font is properly constructed, it can cause remote code execution at that point.
Any program that supports EOT can be used to exploit the vulnerability.
Right now, though, the major program that supports it is IE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30065288</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1257068160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you patch, you're safe. Too bad so many XP users don't opt-in to patching, a lot of them will be infected, but it's a good thing MS started auto-patching by default with Vista, also since Vista has a lot of anti-exploit code (DEP, ASLR, Protected Mode Sandboxing, etc.) it probably won't see very many infections, although I thought I saw on another site that Vista wasn't affected.</p></div><p>Many people turned it off because of the automatic reboot.</p><p>I can't count the number of times I'll be playing a game with someone, and then *poof*, they're gone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you patch , you 're safe .
Too bad so many XP users do n't opt-in to patching , a lot of them will be infected , but it 's a good thing MS started auto-patching by default with Vista , also since Vista has a lot of anti-exploit code ( DEP , ASLR , Protected Mode Sandboxing , etc .
) it probably wo n't see very many infections , although I thought I saw on another site that Vista was n't affected.Many people turned it off because of the automatic reboot.I ca n't count the number of times I 'll be playing a game with someone , and then * poof * , they 're gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you patch, you're safe.
Too bad so many XP users don't opt-in to patching, a lot of them will be infected, but it's a good thing MS started auto-patching by default with Vista, also since Vista has a lot of anti-exploit code (DEP, ASLR, Protected Mode Sandboxing, etc.
) it probably won't see very many infections, although I thought I saw on another site that Vista wasn't affected.Many people turned it off because of the automatic reboot.I can't count the number of times I'll be playing a game with someone, and then *poof*, they're gone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059132</id>
	<title>That's shocking!</title>
	<author>Rik Sweeney</author>
	<datestamp>1257085440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They thank someone from Google for helping them spot the vulnerability! It's in the acknowledgements:</p><p><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS09-065.mspx" title="microsoft.com">http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS09-065.mspx</a> [microsoft.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They thank someone from Google for helping them spot the vulnerability !
It 's in the acknowledgements : http : //www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS09-065.mspx [ microsoft.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They thank someone from Google for helping them spot the vulnerability!
It's in the acknowledgements:http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS09-065.mspx [microsoft.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059922</id>
	<title>soon2b extinct:-)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257089580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>browser stats on a website i tend show a heartening trend:<br><br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;sept09&nbsp; &nbsp;oct09<br>MS IE&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 47&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;41.6 \%<br>Firefox&nbsp; &nbsp; 27.5&nbsp; &nbsp;33.5 \%<br>Safari&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;12.5&nbsp; &nbsp;13.3 \%<br></tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>browser stats on a website i tend show a heartening trend :           sept09     oct09MS IE       47       41.6 \ % Firefox     27.5     33.5 \ % Safari       12.5     13.3 \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>browser stats on a website i tend show a heartening trend:         sept09   oct09MS IE      47     41.6 \%Firefox    27.5   33.5 \%Safari     12.5   13.3 \%</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30062150</id>
	<title>Turn off Automatic Updates's download and install!</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1257098820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can leave it on to notify you or just download them manually when MS releases them (your job to keep track like reading security news or check MS Updates every second and fourth Tuesdays of each month; don't forget emergency releases once in a while!).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can leave it on to notify you or just download them manually when MS releases them ( your job to keep track like reading security news or check MS Updates every second and fourth Tuesdays of each month ; do n't forget emergency releases once in a while !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can leave it on to notify you or just download them manually when MS releases them (your job to keep track like reading security news or check MS Updates every second and fourth Tuesdays of each month; don't forget emergency releases once in a while!
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059998</id>
	<title>No, that was me</title>
	<author>FreeUser</author>
	<datestamp>1257089940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, that was me, driving my Mac Truck(tm) Lorry Load(tm) Malware Package through the gaping holes in your operating system.  The patch you think you applied is just a little eye-candy to make you feel all warm, snug, and safe.  It's working. too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that was me , driving my Mac Truck ( tm ) Lorry Load ( tm ) Malware Package through the gaping holes in your operating system .
The patch you think you applied is just a little eye-candy to make you feel all warm , snug , and safe .
It 's working .
too. : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that was me, driving my Mac Truck(tm) Lorry Load(tm) Malware Package through the gaping holes in your operating system.
The patch you think you applied is just a little eye-candy to make you feel all warm, snug, and safe.
It's working.
too. :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30061018</id>
	<title>Re:and what, pray.....</title>
	<author>tuzo</author>
	<datestamp>1257094380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously tough, I think that when people choose to use a browser that messes with system internals above other browsers that are NOT messing with the kernel, they get what they ultimately deserve.</p></div><p>I don't think people have this coming to them given that:
</p><ul>
<li>most people don't "choose" a browser -- they just use the one that comes with their OS</li><li>an extremely small percentage of computer users actually know what a kernel is</li></ul><p>
Should users be more educated? Maybe. But I don't think it's going to happen because most people don't care.  They just want their computer to work.
</p><p>
What people really deserve is great software with as few bugs and security holes as possible irrespective of their technical understanding of computers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously tough , I think that when people choose to use a browser that messes with system internals above other browsers that are NOT messing with the kernel , they get what they ultimately deserve.I do n't think people have this coming to them given that : most people do n't " choose " a browser -- they just use the one that comes with their OSan extremely small percentage of computer users actually know what a kernel is Should users be more educated ?
Maybe. But I do n't think it 's going to happen because most people do n't care .
They just want their computer to work .
What people really deserve is great software with as few bugs and security holes as possible irrespective of their technical understanding of computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously tough, I think that when people choose to use a browser that messes with system internals above other browsers that are NOT messing with the kernel, they get what they ultimately deserve.I don't think people have this coming to them given that:

most people don't "choose" a browser -- they just use the one that comes with their OSan extremely small percentage of computer users actually know what a kernel is
Should users be more educated?
Maybe. But I don't think it's going to happen because most people don't care.
They just want their computer to work.
What people really deserve is great software with as few bugs and security holes as possible irrespective of their technical understanding of computers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059510</id>
	<title>Fourteen?</title>
	<author>paimin</author>
	<datestamp>1257087960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I, for one, have been getting my hole plugged by Microsoft for a good twenty plus years now.<br>
<br>
So sore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , have been getting my hole plugged by Microsoft for a good twenty plus years now .
So sore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, have been getting my hole plugged by Microsoft for a good twenty plus years now.
So sore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059104</id>
	<title>Re:And the others?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What about the fourteen other fixes?</p></div><p>The article talks about them at the end (on the second page):</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft also issued critical updates for <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS09-063.mspx" title="microsoft.com">Vista and Server 2008</a> [microsoft.com], as well as for Windows 2000 Server. On the latter, which harbors a bug in its implementation of the <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS09-064.mspx" title="microsoft.com">License Logging Server</a> [microsoft.com], a tool originally designed to help customers manage Server Client Access Licenses (CAL), Storms urged users of that aged operating system to apply the patch pronto, even though the machines are probably well-protected. </p><p>"Windows 2000 Server has the logging server enabled by default, but those systems are likely behind multiple firewalls, and people running [Windows 2000 Server] are pretty cognizant of the fact that it's an older version and will act accordingly."</p><p>Excel and Word also received patches today. Eight vulnerabilities were addressed in Excel in <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS09-067.mspx" title="microsoft.com">MS09-067</a> [microsoft.com] and one in Word with <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS09-068.mspx" title="microsoft.com">MS09-068</a> [microsoft.com]. Both updates also affected the Mac editions, Office 2004 and Office 2008.</p></div><p>For more info, check out the top six listings <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/current.aspx" title="microsoft.com">here</a> [microsoft.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the fourteen other fixes ? The article talks about them at the end ( on the second page ) : Microsoft also issued critical updates for Vista and Server 2008 [ microsoft.com ] , as well as for Windows 2000 Server .
On the latter , which harbors a bug in its implementation of the License Logging Server [ microsoft.com ] , a tool originally designed to help customers manage Server Client Access Licenses ( CAL ) , Storms urged users of that aged operating system to apply the patch pronto , even though the machines are probably well-protected .
" Windows 2000 Server has the logging server enabled by default , but those systems are likely behind multiple firewalls , and people running [ Windows 2000 Server ] are pretty cognizant of the fact that it 's an older version and will act accordingly .
" Excel and Word also received patches today .
Eight vulnerabilities were addressed in Excel in MS09-067 [ microsoft.com ] and one in Word with MS09-068 [ microsoft.com ] .
Both updates also affected the Mac editions , Office 2004 and Office 2008.For more info , check out the top six listings here [ microsoft.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the fourteen other fixes?The article talks about them at the end (on the second page):Microsoft also issued critical updates for Vista and Server 2008 [microsoft.com], as well as for Windows 2000 Server.
On the latter, which harbors a bug in its implementation of the License Logging Server [microsoft.com], a tool originally designed to help customers manage Server Client Access Licenses (CAL), Storms urged users of that aged operating system to apply the patch pronto, even though the machines are probably well-protected.
"Windows 2000 Server has the logging server enabled by default, but those systems are likely behind multiple firewalls, and people running [Windows 2000 Server] are pretty cognizant of the fact that it's an older version and will act accordingly.
"Excel and Word also received patches today.
Eight vulnerabilities were addressed in Excel in MS09-067 [microsoft.com] and one in Word with MS09-068 [microsoft.com].
Both updates also affected the Mac editions, Office 2004 and Office 2008.For more info, check out the top six listings here [microsoft.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30062248</id>
	<title>"Opt-in" Is The Wrong Term</title>
	<author>EXTomar</author>
	<datestamp>1257099300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It isn't quite true to suggest people don't "opt-in to patching" on any Windows product.  It is more the case the process is arcane and confusing to some users.  And worse still, the system trains the rest of the users to blindly accept things that look like "official updates" when they are really malware.  I've lost track on the number of times someone asked me what was going on when the WGA thing pops up.  The way it is worded and framed seems to freak users out and I see why: Going for months with a legit copy and suddenly getting challenged makes people wonder if they accidentally broke or misconfiguration their system.  That means many hit cancel because Microsoft gave these worried users a choice of "Do you want to take the chance breaking your system?  Yes or No?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't quite true to suggest people do n't " opt-in to patching " on any Windows product .
It is more the case the process is arcane and confusing to some users .
And worse still , the system trains the rest of the users to blindly accept things that look like " official updates " when they are really malware .
I 've lost track on the number of times someone asked me what was going on when the WGA thing pops up .
The way it is worded and framed seems to freak users out and I see why : Going for months with a legit copy and suddenly getting challenged makes people wonder if they accidentally broke or misconfiguration their system .
That means many hit cancel because Microsoft gave these worried users a choice of " Do you want to take the chance breaking your system ?
Yes or No ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't quite true to suggest people don't "opt-in to patching" on any Windows product.
It is more the case the process is arcane and confusing to some users.
And worse still, the system trains the rest of the users to blindly accept things that look like "official updates" when they are really malware.
I've lost track on the number of times someone asked me what was going on when the WGA thing pops up.
The way it is worded and framed seems to freak users out and I see why: Going for months with a legit copy and suddenly getting challenged makes people wonder if they accidentally broke or misconfiguration their system.
That means many hit cancel because Microsoft gave these worried users a choice of "Do you want to take the chance breaking your system?
Yes or No?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059730</id>
	<title>Re:It's Still Windows</title>
	<author>Bacon Bits</author>
	<datestamp>1257088800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There's only so much improvement you can make when the manufacturer insists on packing so much into the "kernel."</p></div></blockquote><p>So in trying to bash Microsoft you're saying that Linux sucks?</p><p>Linux is a monolithic kernel.  Windows is a hybrid kernel.  Linux puts a lot more into kernel mode/real mode than Windows does.  Many drivers in Windows are user mode drivers, for example, particularly printers.  The only thing I can think of that runs in kernel mode in Windows and not in Linux is the graphics system -- which is why the screen flickers and changes resolutions slower in Linux and Windows tends to run full screen games and video better with DirectX, but it also rarely brings the system down... not that a system you can't get desired display output from is useful entirely.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's only so much improvement you can make when the manufacturer insists on packing so much into the " kernel .
" So in trying to bash Microsoft you 're saying that Linux sucks ? Linux is a monolithic kernel .
Windows is a hybrid kernel .
Linux puts a lot more into kernel mode/real mode than Windows does .
Many drivers in Windows are user mode drivers , for example , particularly printers .
The only thing I can think of that runs in kernel mode in Windows and not in Linux is the graphics system -- which is why the screen flickers and changes resolutions slower in Linux and Windows tends to run full screen games and video better with DirectX , but it also rarely brings the system down... not that a system you ca n't get desired display output from is useful entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's only so much improvement you can make when the manufacturer insists on packing so much into the "kernel.
"So in trying to bash Microsoft you're saying that Linux sucks?Linux is a monolithic kernel.
Windows is a hybrid kernel.
Linux puts a lot more into kernel mode/real mode than Windows does.
Many drivers in Windows are user mode drivers, for example, particularly printers.
The only thing I can think of that runs in kernel mode in Windows and not in Linux is the graphics system -- which is why the screen flickers and changes resolutions slower in Linux and Windows tends to run full screen games and video better with DirectX, but it also rarely brings the system down... not that a system you can't get desired display output from is useful entirely.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30060370</id>
	<title>Re:Yay, tight integration of browser with OS...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257091620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Anybody else think something is integrated with something else in a deeply, deeply wrong way here?</i></p><p>This flaw is in font rendering, and oddly enough was a similar flaw just fixed in the mac as well.</p><p>It has to do with invalid downloadable fonts that then get rendered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody else think something is integrated with something else in a deeply , deeply wrong way here ? This flaw is in font rendering , and oddly enough was a similar flaw just fixed in the mac as well.It has to do with invalid downloadable fonts that then get rendered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody else think something is integrated with something else in a deeply, deeply wrong way here?This flaw is in font rendering, and oddly enough was a similar flaw just fixed in the mac as well.It has to do with invalid downloadable fonts that then get rendered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30062392</id>
	<title>Re:Yay, tight integration of browser with OS...</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1257099900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The handling of EOT (Embedded OpenType) fonts is apparently (at least partially) handled by the kernel and presumably a component of the GDI system.</i></p><p>Interesting.  So this actually goes even deeper than IE being integrated with the OS, and demonstrates why things like font handling should *not* be done in kernel space.</p><p>'course, this wasn't always the case.  There was a time when the video subsystem was largely a userspace component, but during the NT days, they decided to move a lot of video-related functionality into the kernel for performance reasons... and now they're paying the price in the form of weaker security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The handling of EOT ( Embedded OpenType ) fonts is apparently ( at least partially ) handled by the kernel and presumably a component of the GDI system.Interesting .
So this actually goes even deeper than IE being integrated with the OS , and demonstrates why things like font handling should * not * be done in kernel space .
'course , this was n't always the case .
There was a time when the video subsystem was largely a userspace component , but during the NT days , they decided to move a lot of video-related functionality into the kernel for performance reasons... and now they 're paying the price in the form of weaker security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The handling of EOT (Embedded OpenType) fonts is apparently (at least partially) handled by the kernel and presumably a component of the GDI system.Interesting.
So this actually goes even deeper than IE being integrated with the OS, and demonstrates why things like font handling should *not* be done in kernel space.
'course, this wasn't always the case.
There was a time when the video subsystem was largely a userspace component, but during the NT days, they decided to move a lot of video-related functionality into the kernel for performance reasons... and now they're paying the price in the form of weaker security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30060438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30061940</id>
	<title>Re:Yay, tight integration of browser with OS...</title>
	<author>v1</author>
	<datestamp>1257098040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>was just going to say... aaaaaaand that's what you get for hooking the kernel to your <b> <i>web browser</i><nobr> <wbr></nobr></b>...  idiots.</p><p>"windows security" isn't just <i>an</i> oxymoron, it's <i>the</i> oxymoron.  They just... never... learn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>was just going to say... aaaaaaand that 's what you get for hooking the kernel to your web browser .. .
idiots. " windows security " is n't just an oxymoron , it 's the oxymoron .
They just... never... learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>was just going to say... aaaaaaand that's what you get for hooking the kernel to your  web browser ...
idiots."windows security" isn't just an oxymoron, it's the oxymoron.
They just... never... learn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30061140</id>
	<title>Re:It's Still Windows</title>
	<author>ettlz</author>
	<datestamp>1257094920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Windows is a hybrid kernel. Linux puts a lot more into kernel mode/real mode than Windows does.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Oh come on now, "hybrid" kernel is nonsense marketspeak; all the high-level services such as networking and filesystems and drivers run in the same address space. How they chat to each other is irrelevant here, NT is a monolithic kernel. And what the hell is a configuration database, the Registry, doing as a kernel service? And then there's GDI etc. --- (up until recently used to be) a kernel service.</p><blockquote><div><p>The only thing I can think of that runs in kernel mode in Windows and not in Linux is the graphics system</p></div></blockquote><p>
The thinnest end of the graphics wedge (namely, modesetting, GPU multiplexing and memory management) is now being pushed into the Linux kernel, where such low-level hardware stuff should be. The GL heavy lifting and provision of a high-level graphical system (e.g. windowing, <i>viz.</i> X) is done in userspace, where it should be. The problem with Windows used to be that a lot of the latter was also a kernel service. Flickering displays are quickly becoming a thing of the past these days as typically the optimal resolution is chosen early on when the relevant DRI module (i915 or radeon, so far) loads.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows is a hybrid kernel .
Linux puts a lot more into kernel mode/real mode than Windows does .
Oh come on now , " hybrid " kernel is nonsense marketspeak ; all the high-level services such as networking and filesystems and drivers run in the same address space .
How they chat to each other is irrelevant here , NT is a monolithic kernel .
And what the hell is a configuration database , the Registry , doing as a kernel service ?
And then there 's GDI etc .
--- ( up until recently used to be ) a kernel service.The only thing I can think of that runs in kernel mode in Windows and not in Linux is the graphics system The thinnest end of the graphics wedge ( namely , modesetting , GPU multiplexing and memory management ) is now being pushed into the Linux kernel , where such low-level hardware stuff should be .
The GL heavy lifting and provision of a high-level graphical system ( e.g .
windowing , viz .
X ) is done in userspace , where it should be .
The problem with Windows used to be that a lot of the latter was also a kernel service .
Flickering displays are quickly becoming a thing of the past these days as typically the optimal resolution is chosen early on when the relevant DRI module ( i915 or radeon , so far ) loads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows is a hybrid kernel.
Linux puts a lot more into kernel mode/real mode than Windows does.
Oh come on now, "hybrid" kernel is nonsense marketspeak; all the high-level services such as networking and filesystems and drivers run in the same address space.
How they chat to each other is irrelevant here, NT is a monolithic kernel.
And what the hell is a configuration database, the Registry, doing as a kernel service?
And then there's GDI etc.
--- (up until recently used to be) a kernel service.The only thing I can think of that runs in kernel mode in Windows and not in Linux is the graphics system
The thinnest end of the graphics wedge (namely, modesetting, GPU multiplexing and memory management) is now being pushed into the Linux kernel, where such low-level hardware stuff should be.
The GL heavy lifting and provision of a high-level graphical system (e.g.
windowing, viz.
X) is done in userspace, where it should be.
The problem with Windows used to be that a lot of the latter was also a kernel service.
Flickering displays are quickly becoming a thing of the past these days as typically the optimal resolution is chosen early on when the relevant DRI module (i915 or radeon, so far) loads.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30062606</id>
	<title>Re:It's Still Windows</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1257100980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Linux is a monolithic kernel. Windows is a hybrid kernel. Linux puts a lot more into kernel mode/real mode than Windows does. Many drivers in Windows are user mode drivers, for example, particularly printers.</i></p><p>Uh, just FYI, printer drivers are usermode in Linux as well.  Furthermore, until recently (ie, the Vista pedigree), the  Windows drivers were built against the KMDF, and so ran in kernel mode.</p><p>Secondly, your statement that "the only thing I can think of that runs in kernel mode in Windows and not in Linux is the graphics system" *severely* understates the impact of this difference.  The "graphics subsystem" in both Windows and Linux is *massive*.  That's an extremely non-trivial amount of code that unnecessarily runs in kernelmode on Windows, and that means a vastly increased surface area that can be exploited.</p><p>'course, that's not to say Linux couldn't improve and move more functionality out into userspace (assuming no negative performance impact).  But Windows is really not that much better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux is a monolithic kernel .
Windows is a hybrid kernel .
Linux puts a lot more into kernel mode/real mode than Windows does .
Many drivers in Windows are user mode drivers , for example , particularly printers.Uh , just FYI , printer drivers are usermode in Linux as well .
Furthermore , until recently ( ie , the Vista pedigree ) , the Windows drivers were built against the KMDF , and so ran in kernel mode.Secondly , your statement that " the only thing I can think of that runs in kernel mode in Windows and not in Linux is the graphics system " * severely * understates the impact of this difference .
The " graphics subsystem " in both Windows and Linux is * massive * .
That 's an extremely non-trivial amount of code that unnecessarily runs in kernelmode on Windows , and that means a vastly increased surface area that can be exploited .
'course , that 's not to say Linux could n't improve and move more functionality out into userspace ( assuming no negative performance impact ) .
But Windows is really not that much better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux is a monolithic kernel.
Windows is a hybrid kernel.
Linux puts a lot more into kernel mode/real mode than Windows does.
Many drivers in Windows are user mode drivers, for example, particularly printers.Uh, just FYI, printer drivers are usermode in Linux as well.
Furthermore, until recently (ie, the Vista pedigree), the  Windows drivers were built against the KMDF, and so ran in kernel mode.Secondly, your statement that "the only thing I can think of that runs in kernel mode in Windows and not in Linux is the graphics system" *severely* understates the impact of this difference.
The "graphics subsystem" in both Windows and Linux is *massive*.
That's an extremely non-trivial amount of code that unnecessarily runs in kernelmode on Windows, and that means a vastly increased surface area that can be exploited.
'course, that's not to say Linux couldn't improve and move more functionality out into userspace (assuming no negative performance impact).
But Windows is really not that much better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059226</id>
	<title>IEaaaaggghhh, trolling for more smoke&amp;mirrors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257086100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what's really 'funny' is that robbIE/VA larry et al derive a disproportionate \% of their fortunes from paid ads for the infactdead softwar gangster bugware, when to begin with, robbIE &amp; fuddles were nemeses. how the worm turns, no?</p><p>then robbIE, kodemaster extrordinaire, has some of his juvenile butt buddies present us with false solicitations as well. wwworm again. talk about 'holes'.</p><p>mynuts won; to be hidden/deleted immediately, let freedumb (of speech/information), ring (up the sales)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what 's really 'funny ' is that robbIE/VA larry et al derive a disproportionate \ % of their fortunes from paid ads for the infactdead softwar gangster bugware , when to begin with , robbIE &amp; fuddles were nemeses .
how the worm turns , no ? then robbIE , kodemaster extrordinaire , has some of his juvenile butt buddies present us with false solicitations as well .
wwworm again .
talk about 'holes'.mynuts won ; to be hidden/deleted immediately , let freedumb ( of speech/information ) , ring ( up the sales ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what's really 'funny' is that robbIE/VA larry et al derive a disproportionate \% of their fortunes from paid ads for the infactdead softwar gangster bugware, when to begin with, robbIE &amp; fuddles were nemeses.
how the worm turns, no?then robbIE, kodemaster extrordinaire, has some of his juvenile butt buddies present us with false solicitations as well.
wwworm again.
talk about 'holes'.mynuts won; to be hidden/deleted immediately, let freedumb (of speech/information), ring (up the sales)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059076</id>
	<title>Yay, tight integration of browser with OS...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Anyone running IE [Internet Explorer] is at risk here, even though the flaw is not in the browser, but in the Win32k kernel mode driver."</p></div></blockquote><p>Anybody else think something is integrated with something else in a deeply, deeply wrong way here?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Anyone running IE [ Internet Explorer ] is at risk here , even though the flaw is not in the browser , but in the Win32k kernel mode driver .
" Anybody else think something is integrated with something else in a deeply , deeply wrong way here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Anyone running IE [Internet Explorer] is at risk here, even though the flaw is not in the browser, but in the Win32k kernel mode driver.
"Anybody else think something is integrated with something else in a deeply, deeply wrong way here?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059586</id>
	<title>Mac, Linux, anything but Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once again I am delighted that I switched to Mac. The entire Windows ecosystem is riddled with these sorts of design flaws. What more reason can anyone need to get off of Microsoft?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again I am delighted that I switched to Mac .
The entire Windows ecosystem is riddled with these sorts of design flaws .
What more reason can anyone need to get off of Microsoft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again I am delighted that I switched to Mac.
The entire Windows ecosystem is riddled with these sorts of design flaws.
What more reason can anyone need to get off of Microsoft?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30061548</id>
	<title>On the decision to update or not to update</title>
	<author>Jeffrey\_Walsh VA</author>
	<datestamp>1257096540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While supporting 100+ Xp machines for a period of about two years, I noticed that machines that were set to accept all updates typically suffered a gradual but steady drop in performance over time. My guess is registry bloat is the biggest culprit. The machines that didn't update automatically, but had service packs installed when available maintained noticeably better performance. The downside of playing russian roulette with security also showed with the non-updated machines hit by malware - rarely, but more often than the updated set - despite a good effort to keep third party security software (MacAfee, Symantec, or Kaspersky) on and updated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While supporting 100 + Xp machines for a period of about two years , I noticed that machines that were set to accept all updates typically suffered a gradual but steady drop in performance over time .
My guess is registry bloat is the biggest culprit .
The machines that did n't update automatically , but had service packs installed when available maintained noticeably better performance .
The downside of playing russian roulette with security also showed with the non-updated machines hit by malware - rarely , but more often than the updated set - despite a good effort to keep third party security software ( MacAfee , Symantec , or Kaspersky ) on and updated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While supporting 100+ Xp machines for a period of about two years, I noticed that machines that were set to accept all updates typically suffered a gradual but steady drop in performance over time.
My guess is registry bloat is the biggest culprit.
The machines that didn't update automatically, but had service packs installed when available maintained noticeably better performance.
The downside of playing russian roulette with security also showed with the non-updated machines hit by malware - rarely, but more often than the updated set - despite a good effort to keep third party security software (MacAfee, Symantec, or Kaspersky) on and updated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30061172</id>
	<title>Re:Mac, Linux, anything but Microsoft</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1257094980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I guess if you want to pay double for the same computer that doesn't run as many applications.  But enjoy your overpriced hardware and Office 2008 for mac.  Lets hope your iPod doesn't catch fire and burn down your house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I guess if you want to pay double for the same computer that does n't run as many applications .
But enjoy your overpriced hardware and Office 2008 for mac .
Lets hope your iPod does n't catch fire and burn down your house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I guess if you want to pay double for the same computer that doesn't run as many applications.
But enjoy your overpriced hardware and Office 2008 for mac.
Lets hope your iPod doesn't catch fire and burn down your house.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30060438</id>
	<title>Re:Yay, tight integration of browser with OS...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257091980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anybody else think something is integrated with something else in a deeply, deeply wrong way here?</p></div><p>No, not really, at least, not in the way you're insinuating. The Win32k kernel mode driver is essentially the major component of the Windows kernel responsible for kernel-mode graphics related processing. Put more succinctly by MS from the <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS09-065.mspx" title="microsoft.com">MS09-065</a> [microsoft.com] security bulletin:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Win32k.sys is a kernel-mode device driver and is the kernel part of the Windows subsystem. It contains the window manager, which controls window displays; manages screen output; collects input from the keyboard, mouse, and other devices; and passes user messages to applications. It also contains the Graphics Device Interface (GDI), which is a library of functions for graphics output devices. Finally, it serves as a wrapper for DirectX support that is implemented in another driver (dxgkrnl.sys).</p></div><p>The handling of EOT (Embedded OpenType) fonts is apparently (at least partially) handled by the kernel and presumably a component of the GDI system. IE supports EOT fonts and presumably just hands them off to the kernel, after all, it is delegated the responsibility of handling them, so why re-implement it in IE? The flaw is not really in IE but in buggy code in the relevant processing. There is an argument to be made that IE really shouldn't be explicitly processing these fonts by default in an untrusted network (and this can be changed in the preferences, but is not the default), but the flaw itself is in the system call code itself; the latter is merely about reducing attack surface in the case of exploits such as this arising.</p><p>My point is, this isn't really a case of IE being "overly" coupled into the system (which isn't to say it isn't, just that I don't view this as an example of it). Whether it's sensible engineering to have the kernel handle this stuff is probably a far more interesting and valid argument. Protecting against system call vulnerabilities is pretty tough, as you do expect the kernel to be trusted, indeed, if you can't trust the kernel you have serious problems. A quick google seems to suggest Firefox doesn't support EOT fonts, and I'm not sure if any other browsers do either, but if they did, they may well have their own exploit situations as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody else think something is integrated with something else in a deeply , deeply wrong way here ? No , not really , at least , not in the way you 're insinuating .
The Win32k kernel mode driver is essentially the major component of the Windows kernel responsible for kernel-mode graphics related processing .
Put more succinctly by MS from the MS09-065 [ microsoft.com ] security bulletin : Win32k.sys is a kernel-mode device driver and is the kernel part of the Windows subsystem .
It contains the window manager , which controls window displays ; manages screen output ; collects input from the keyboard , mouse , and other devices ; and passes user messages to applications .
It also contains the Graphics Device Interface ( GDI ) , which is a library of functions for graphics output devices .
Finally , it serves as a wrapper for DirectX support that is implemented in another driver ( dxgkrnl.sys ) .The handling of EOT ( Embedded OpenType ) fonts is apparently ( at least partially ) handled by the kernel and presumably a component of the GDI system .
IE supports EOT fonts and presumably just hands them off to the kernel , after all , it is delegated the responsibility of handling them , so why re-implement it in IE ?
The flaw is not really in IE but in buggy code in the relevant processing .
There is an argument to be made that IE really should n't be explicitly processing these fonts by default in an untrusted network ( and this can be changed in the preferences , but is not the default ) , but the flaw itself is in the system call code itself ; the latter is merely about reducing attack surface in the case of exploits such as this arising.My point is , this is n't really a case of IE being " overly " coupled into the system ( which is n't to say it is n't , just that I do n't view this as an example of it ) .
Whether it 's sensible engineering to have the kernel handle this stuff is probably a far more interesting and valid argument .
Protecting against system call vulnerabilities is pretty tough , as you do expect the kernel to be trusted , indeed , if you ca n't trust the kernel you have serious problems .
A quick google seems to suggest Firefox does n't support EOT fonts , and I 'm not sure if any other browsers do either , but if they did , they may well have their own exploit situations as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody else think something is integrated with something else in a deeply, deeply wrong way here?No, not really, at least, not in the way you're insinuating.
The Win32k kernel mode driver is essentially the major component of the Windows kernel responsible for kernel-mode graphics related processing.
Put more succinctly by MS from the MS09-065 [microsoft.com] security bulletin:Win32k.sys is a kernel-mode device driver and is the kernel part of the Windows subsystem.
It contains the window manager, which controls window displays; manages screen output; collects input from the keyboard, mouse, and other devices; and passes user messages to applications.
It also contains the Graphics Device Interface (GDI), which is a library of functions for graphics output devices.
Finally, it serves as a wrapper for DirectX support that is implemented in another driver (dxgkrnl.sys).The handling of EOT (Embedded OpenType) fonts is apparently (at least partially) handled by the kernel and presumably a component of the GDI system.
IE supports EOT fonts and presumably just hands them off to the kernel, after all, it is delegated the responsibility of handling them, so why re-implement it in IE?
The flaw is not really in IE but in buggy code in the relevant processing.
There is an argument to be made that IE really shouldn't be explicitly processing these fonts by default in an untrusted network (and this can be changed in the preferences, but is not the default), but the flaw itself is in the system call code itself; the latter is merely about reducing attack surface in the case of exploits such as this arising.My point is, this isn't really a case of IE being "overly" coupled into the system (which isn't to say it isn't, just that I don't view this as an example of it).
Whether it's sensible engineering to have the kernel handle this stuff is probably a far more interesting and valid argument.
Protecting against system call vulnerabilities is pretty tough, as you do expect the kernel to be trusted, indeed, if you can't trust the kernel you have serious problems.
A quick google seems to suggest Firefox doesn't support EOT fonts, and I'm not sure if any other browsers do either, but if they did, they may well have their own exploit situations as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30062218</id>
	<title>Re:Mac, Linux, anything but Microsoft</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1257099180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OS X has been tardy in implementing things like ASLR and there have been plenty of security issues that Apple took too long to patch. It may be that OS X in general has a better track record than Windows, but Apple certainly aren't paying as close attention to security as they should.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OS X has been tardy in implementing things like ASLR and there have been plenty of security issues that Apple took too long to patch .
It may be that OS X in general has a better track record than Windows , but Apple certainly are n't paying as close attention to security as they should .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OS X has been tardy in implementing things like ASLR and there have been plenty of security issues that Apple took too long to patch.
It may be that OS X in general has a better track record than Windows, but Apple certainly aren't paying as close attention to security as they should.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059306</id>
	<title>Re:Yay, tight integration of browser with OS...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257086820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Captain Obvious ? Is that you ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Captain Obvious ?
Is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Captain Obvious ?
Is that you ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30062208</id>
	<title>This is ironic...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257099120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That FireFox has more access to the system than IE on Vista and Windows 7, because it doesn't implement protected mode. Grow up, children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That FireFox has more access to the system than IE on Vista and Windows 7 , because it does n't implement protected mode .
Grow up , children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That FireFox has more access to the system than IE on Vista and Windows 7, because it doesn't implement protected mode.
Grow up, children.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059182</id>
	<title>Would the big customers know more?</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1257085920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article <p><div class="quote"><p>But while Storms speculated that Microsoft knew the EOT font flaw was a security issue -- and waited until now to patch older Windows -- Lai thought that Microsoft didn't realize until recently that it was also a security vulnerability in editions prior to Windows 7. "I think they fixed this bug as part of the code sanitization during [Windows 7's] development cycle. It was actually only publicly disclosed recently, and then they patched it in other Windows</p></div><p>The article is speculating what did Micrsoft know and when did it know it etc. Microsoft's standard line defending its security through obscurity policy is, "we are not providing any details because it is going to help the hackers". But what about its big customers? Almost all businesses do not care much about its small customers. So forget small timers. But Microsoft has to coddle its big Fortune500 company customers. Would they be informed, even under confidentiality agreements and non disclosure agreements, which platforms and applications are vulnerable? </p><p>

How do these big companies justify being so meek and acquiescing to Microsoft? If these Fortune 500 companies chip in 100,000$ a year, they can create an Institute of Software Interoperability and go towards reducing their switching costs. Microsoft has total revenue of more than 25 billion dollars, and a significant chunk comes from these big companies. They pay off has to be enormous for these companies. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article But while Storms speculated that Microsoft knew the EOT font flaw was a security issue -- and waited until now to patch older Windows -- Lai thought that Microsoft did n't realize until recently that it was also a security vulnerability in editions prior to Windows 7 .
" I think they fixed this bug as part of the code sanitization during [ Windows 7 's ] development cycle .
It was actually only publicly disclosed recently , and then they patched it in other WindowsThe article is speculating what did Micrsoft know and when did it know it etc .
Microsoft 's standard line defending its security through obscurity policy is , " we are not providing any details because it is going to help the hackers " .
But what about its big customers ?
Almost all businesses do not care much about its small customers .
So forget small timers .
But Microsoft has to coddle its big Fortune500 company customers .
Would they be informed , even under confidentiality agreements and non disclosure agreements , which platforms and applications are vulnerable ?
How do these big companies justify being so meek and acquiescing to Microsoft ?
If these Fortune 500 companies chip in 100,000 $ a year , they can create an Institute of Software Interoperability and go towards reducing their switching costs .
Microsoft has total revenue of more than 25 billion dollars , and a significant chunk comes from these big companies .
They pay off has to be enormous for these companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article But while Storms speculated that Microsoft knew the EOT font flaw was a security issue -- and waited until now to patch older Windows -- Lai thought that Microsoft didn't realize until recently that it was also a security vulnerability in editions prior to Windows 7.
"I think they fixed this bug as part of the code sanitization during [Windows 7's] development cycle.
It was actually only publicly disclosed recently, and then they patched it in other WindowsThe article is speculating what did Micrsoft know and when did it know it etc.
Microsoft's standard line defending its security through obscurity policy is, "we are not providing any details because it is going to help the hackers".
But what about its big customers?
Almost all businesses do not care much about its small customers.
So forget small timers.
But Microsoft has to coddle its big Fortune500 company customers.
Would they be informed, even under confidentiality agreements and non disclosure agreements, which platforms and applications are vulnerable?
How do these big companies justify being so meek and acquiescing to Microsoft?
If these Fortune 500 companies chip in 100,000$ a year, they can create an Institute of Software Interoperability and go towards reducing their switching costs.
Microsoft has total revenue of more than 25 billion dollars, and a significant chunk comes from these big companies.
They pay off has to be enormous for these companies. 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059150</id>
	<title>It's Still Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No wonder my home system was such a dog this morning. It was pulling the latest patches and updates.</p><p>Meanwhile, it's still Windows.   There's only so much improvement you can make when the manufacturer insists on packing so much into the "kernel."  I was always taught that the OS kernel is the one piece that provides the interface between all software and all hardware.  File systems, GUIs, internet browsers and lesbian Pr0n are all just forms of software that should be clients to the ultimately optimized but minimalist kernel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No wonder my home system was such a dog this morning .
It was pulling the latest patches and updates.Meanwhile , it 's still Windows .
There 's only so much improvement you can make when the manufacturer insists on packing so much into the " kernel .
" I was always taught that the OS kernel is the one piece that provides the interface between all software and all hardware .
File systems , GUIs , internet browsers and lesbian Pr0n are all just forms of software that should be clients to the ultimately optimized but minimalist kernel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No wonder my home system was such a dog this morning.
It was pulling the latest patches and updates.Meanwhile, it's still Windows.
There's only so much improvement you can make when the manufacturer insists on packing so much into the "kernel.
"  I was always taught that the OS kernel is the one piece that provides the interface between all software and all hardware.
File systems, GUIs, internet browsers and lesbian Pr0n are all just forms of software that should be clients to the ultimately optimized but minimalist kernel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059070</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you patch, you're safe. Too bad so many XP users don't opt-in to patching, a lot of them will be infected, but it's a good thing MS started auto-patching by default with Vista, also since Vista has a lot of anti-exploit code (DEP, ASLR, Protected Mode Sandboxing, etc.) it probably won't see very many infections, although I thought I saw on another site that Vista wasn't affected.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you patch , you 're safe .
Too bad so many XP users do n't opt-in to patching , a lot of them will be infected , but it 's a good thing MS started auto-patching by default with Vista , also since Vista has a lot of anti-exploit code ( DEP , ASLR , Protected Mode Sandboxing , etc .
) it probably wo n't see very many infections , although I thought I saw on another site that Vista was n't affected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you patch, you're safe.
Too bad so many XP users don't opt-in to patching, a lot of them will be infected, but it's a good thing MS started auto-patching by default with Vista, also since Vista has a lot of anti-exploit code (DEP, ASLR, Protected Mode Sandboxing, etc.
) it probably won't see very many infections, although I thought I saw on another site that Vista wasn't affected.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059016</id>
	<title>In before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257084720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In before Windows vs Linux vs Mac shitstorm...</htmltext>
<tokenext>In before Windows vs Linux vs Mac shitstorm.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In before Windows vs Linux vs Mac shitstorm...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059526</id>
	<title>and what, pray.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>....is Internet Explorer?........aaaahh, that buggy browser that comes with windows. I stopped using it four years ago and deleted the icon.<br> <br>
Seriously tough, I think that when people choose to use a browser that messes with system internals above other browsers that are NOT messing with the kernel, they get what they ultimately deserve. I remember a particularly buggy period that really had me going definitely over to Firefox: whenever IE crashed, I had to reboot. With firefox, killing the program would suffice, and I had far fewer problems anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>....is Internet Explorer ? ........aaaahh , that buggy browser that comes with windows .
I stopped using it four years ago and deleted the icon .
Seriously tough , I think that when people choose to use a browser that messes with system internals above other browsers that are NOT messing with the kernel , they get what they ultimately deserve .
I remember a particularly buggy period that really had me going definitely over to Firefox : whenever IE crashed , I had to reboot .
With firefox , killing the program would suffice , and I had far fewer problems anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....is Internet Explorer?........aaaahh, that buggy browser that comes with windows.
I stopped using it four years ago and deleted the icon.
Seriously tough, I think that when people choose to use a browser that messes with system internals above other browsers that are NOT messing with the kernel, they get what they ultimately deserve.
I remember a particularly buggy period that really had me going definitely over to Firefox: whenever IE crashed, I had to reboot.
With firefox, killing the program would suffice, and I had far fewer problems anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059210</id>
	<title>Nothing is perfect, either Windows 7</title>
	<author>mssoh449188</author>
	<datestamp>1257086040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am used to it now, Just like whenever a new product launched, for instance Windows 7, do not hope that it will be perfect as it claimed to be the day 7 in the bible where everything is set. Anyway Windows and Microsoft are still man-made, nothing is perfect.

Winson
<a href="http://aabatterycharger.org/" title="aabatterycharger.org" rel="nofollow">http://aabatterycharger.org/</a> [aabatterycharger.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am used to it now , Just like whenever a new product launched , for instance Windows 7 , do not hope that it will be perfect as it claimed to be the day 7 in the bible where everything is set .
Anyway Windows and Microsoft are still man-made , nothing is perfect .
Winson http : //aabatterycharger.org/ [ aabatterycharger.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am used to it now, Just like whenever a new product launched, for instance Windows 7, do not hope that it will be perfect as it claimed to be the day 7 in the bible where everything is set.
Anyway Windows and Microsoft are still man-made, nothing is perfect.
Winson
http://aabatterycharger.org/ [aabatterycharger.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30063378</id>
	<title>Re:It's Still Windows</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1257104100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, since Vista even graphics drivers aren't all entirely in the kernel anymore. WDDM splits graphics drivers into two parts, a low-level realtime component which is responsible for direct interaction with the graphics card (scheduling DMA and stuff like that) and a higher-level component which does things like implement OpenGL and DirectX primitives. That's why graphics drivers can crash in Vista without taking down the entire OS: most of the driver is running in usermode.

And not just printer drivers and video drivers run in user mode. UMDF (User-mode Driver Framework) allows any device that operates over certain busses (like USB) to have a user-mode device driver.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , since Vista even graphics drivers are n't all entirely in the kernel anymore .
WDDM splits graphics drivers into two parts , a low-level realtime component which is responsible for direct interaction with the graphics card ( scheduling DMA and stuff like that ) and a higher-level component which does things like implement OpenGL and DirectX primitives .
That 's why graphics drivers can crash in Vista without taking down the entire OS : most of the driver is running in usermode .
And not just printer drivers and video drivers run in user mode .
UMDF ( User-mode Driver Framework ) allows any device that operates over certain busses ( like USB ) to have a user-mode device driver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, since Vista even graphics drivers aren't all entirely in the kernel anymore.
WDDM splits graphics drivers into two parts, a low-level realtime component which is responsible for direct interaction with the graphics card (scheduling DMA and stuff like that) and a higher-level component which does things like implement OpenGL and DirectX primitives.
That's why graphics drivers can crash in Vista without taking down the entire OS: most of the driver is running in usermode.
And not just printer drivers and video drivers run in user mode.
UMDF (User-mode Driver Framework) allows any device that operates over certain busses (like USB) to have a user-mode device driver.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059730</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30061172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30060710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30063378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30061548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30060542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30062208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30065288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30062392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30060438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30061018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30061140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30064020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30065720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30062602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30062248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30062218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30060370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30061940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30062150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30062606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0053244_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30075570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0053244.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30061018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0053244.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30062248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30065288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30061548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0053244.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30060542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30062218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30061172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0053244.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0053244.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30062602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30060710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30064020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30062208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30060438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30062392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30061940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30060370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0053244.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0053244.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0053244.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0053244.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30065720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30063378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30075570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30062606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30061140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30062150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0053244.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0053244.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0053244.30059226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
