<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_22_1419255</id>
	<title>New Attack Fells Internet Explorer</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1258903980000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>alphadogg writes <i>"Attack code has been identified that could be used to <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/112209-new-attack-fells-internet.html">break into a PC running older versions of Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser</a>. The code was <a href="http://seclists.org/bugtraq/2009/Nov/148">posted Friday to the Bugtraq mailing list</a> by an unidentified hacker. According to security vendor Symantec, the code does not always work properly, but it could be used to <a href="http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2009/3301">install unauthorized software</a> on a victim's computer."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>alphadogg writes " Attack code has been identified that could be used to break into a PC running older versions of Microsoft 's Internet Explorer browser .
The code was posted Friday to the Bugtraq mailing list by an unidentified hacker .
According to security vendor Symantec , the code does not always work properly , but it could be used to install unauthorized software on a victim 's computer .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>alphadogg writes "Attack code has been identified that could be used to break into a PC running older versions of Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser.
The code was posted Friday to the Bugtraq mailing list by an unidentified hacker.
According to security vendor Symantec, the code does not always work properly, but it could be used to install unauthorized software on a victim's computer.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30200542</id>
	<title>Re:Oh good Lord *facepalm*</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258977660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You&rsquo;re just jealous, that it&rsquo;s not <em>you</em> who infected those computers. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You    re just jealous , that it    s not you who infected those computers .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You’re just jealous, that it’s not you who infected those computers.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30197276</id>
	<title>Re:Is that supposed to be news??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258891620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I work for a very large bank, and IE 6 is the corporate standard.</p></div><p>What can possibly go wrong? Oh wait...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a very large bank , and IE 6 is the corporate standard.What can possibly go wrong ?
Oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a very large bank, and IE 6 is the corporate standard.What can possibly go wrong?
Oh wait...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30195728</id>
	<title>Re:Oh good Lord *facepalm*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258923120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you think there are 0\% Linux and Mac botnets and malware in the wild, you are seriously uninformed.
<br> <br>
<a href="http://theappleblog.com/2009/04/24/mac-botnet-how-to-ensure-you-are-not-part-of-the-problem/" title="theappleblog.com" rel="nofollow">http://theappleblog.com/2009/04/24/mac-botnet-how-to-ensure-you-are-not-part-of-the-problem/</a> [theappleblog.com] <br>
<a href="http://blog.trendmicro.com/more-mac-malware-in-the-wild/" title="trendmicro.com" rel="nofollow">http://blog.trendmicro.com/more-mac-malware-in-the-wild/</a> [trendmicro.com] <br>
<a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/222153/" title="lwn.net" rel="nofollow">http://lwn.net/Articles/222153/</a> [lwn.net] - Linux botnets<br>
<a href="http://blogs.computerworld.com/14723/no\_more\_linux\_security\_bragging\_botnet\_discovery\_worry" title="computerworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.computerworld.com/14723/no\_more\_linux\_security\_bragging\_botnet\_discovery\_worry</a> [computerworld.com] <br>
<br>
This is just a small sample. Let's all take security seriously, and leave religion to the gods. (and to head of the claim that it doesn't count if the user has to install something, like a pirated malware-infected Photoshop for OSX, that is the most common Win vector these days as well. Malware is the problem, not viruses.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think there are 0 \ % Linux and Mac botnets and malware in the wild , you are seriously uninformed .
http : //theappleblog.com/2009/04/24/mac-botnet-how-to-ensure-you-are-not-part-of-the-problem/ [ theappleblog.com ] http : //blog.trendmicro.com/more-mac-malware-in-the-wild/ [ trendmicro.com ] http : //lwn.net/Articles/222153/ [ lwn.net ] - Linux botnets http : //blogs.computerworld.com/14723/no \ _more \ _linux \ _security \ _bragging \ _botnet \ _discovery \ _worry [ computerworld.com ] This is just a small sample .
Let 's all take security seriously , and leave religion to the gods .
( and to head of the claim that it does n't count if the user has to install something , like a pirated malware-infected Photoshop for OSX , that is the most common Win vector these days as well .
Malware is the problem , not viruses .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think there are 0\% Linux and Mac botnets and malware in the wild, you are seriously uninformed.
http://theappleblog.com/2009/04/24/mac-botnet-how-to-ensure-you-are-not-part-of-the-problem/ [theappleblog.com] 
http://blog.trendmicro.com/more-mac-malware-in-the-wild/ [trendmicro.com] 
http://lwn.net/Articles/222153/ [lwn.net] - Linux botnets
http://blogs.computerworld.com/14723/no\_more\_linux\_security\_bragging\_botnet\_discovery\_worry [computerworld.com] 

This is just a small sample.
Let's all take security seriously, and leave religion to the gods.
(and to head of the claim that it doesn't count if the user has to install something, like a pirated malware-infected Photoshop for OSX, that is the most common Win vector these days as well.
Malware is the problem, not viruses.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30200496</id>
	<title>Re:Not aware of a patch?</title>
	<author>lamapper</author>
	<datestamp>1258976460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are plenty of web apps (especially in the "Enterprise" environment) which depend of quirks of specific browsers. Most commonly IE6. Using a different browser means making major changes. At which point it probably dosn't matter if the change were to be to Firefox, Opera, Safari, etc. Indeed there are versions of Windows which won't run IE8, but will run modern non Microsoft browsers.</p></div><p>Only if some pin headed manager allowed his web developers to continue to code sites with IE specific hacks.

</p><p>I learned back in the Netscape days, if you developed in Netscape it just worked in all other browsers, however if you developed in Internet Explorer, you would invariably use some IE specific coding that would break in many if not all non IE browsers.

</p><p>Microsoft made a business decision to attempt to corrupt the W3 standards with IE specific crap for vendor lock-in reasons only.  Some people stupidly bought into this and are paying with crackers, problems with Active X and many other non secure coding of web pages.  They made their bed, let them lie in it.  The fact is they had a choice and typical of Microsoft, they chose to attempt to vendor lock-in in order to Extinguish later.  Pathetic and lame.

</p><p>I still hit websites, in 2009, that do not display right in Firefox, what crap, fortunately there are other sources to get that information and I leave that website never to return...their loss, not mine.  Later.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are plenty of web apps ( especially in the " Enterprise " environment ) which depend of quirks of specific browsers .
Most commonly IE6 .
Using a different browser means making major changes .
At which point it probably dos n't matter if the change were to be to Firefox , Opera , Safari , etc .
Indeed there are versions of Windows which wo n't run IE8 , but will run modern non Microsoft browsers.Only if some pin headed manager allowed his web developers to continue to code sites with IE specific hacks .
I learned back in the Netscape days , if you developed in Netscape it just worked in all other browsers , however if you developed in Internet Explorer , you would invariably use some IE specific coding that would break in many if not all non IE browsers .
Microsoft made a business decision to attempt to corrupt the W3 standards with IE specific crap for vendor lock-in reasons only .
Some people stupidly bought into this and are paying with crackers , problems with Active X and many other non secure coding of web pages .
They made their bed , let them lie in it .
The fact is they had a choice and typical of Microsoft , they chose to attempt to vendor lock-in in order to Extinguish later .
Pathetic and lame .
I still hit websites , in 2009 , that do not display right in Firefox , what crap , fortunately there are other sources to get that information and I leave that website never to return...their loss , not mine .
Later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are plenty of web apps (especially in the "Enterprise" environment) which depend of quirks of specific browsers.
Most commonly IE6.
Using a different browser means making major changes.
At which point it probably dosn't matter if the change were to be to Firefox, Opera, Safari, etc.
Indeed there are versions of Windows which won't run IE8, but will run modern non Microsoft browsers.Only if some pin headed manager allowed his web developers to continue to code sites with IE specific hacks.
I learned back in the Netscape days, if you developed in Netscape it just worked in all other browsers, however if you developed in Internet Explorer, you would invariably use some IE specific coding that would break in many if not all non IE browsers.
Microsoft made a business decision to attempt to corrupt the W3 standards with IE specific crap for vendor lock-in reasons only.
Some people stupidly bought into this and are paying with crackers, problems with Active X and many other non secure coding of web pages.
They made their bed, let them lie in it.
The fact is they had a choice and typical of Microsoft, they chose to attempt to vendor lock-in in order to Extinguish later.
Pathetic and lame.
I still hit websites, in 2009, that do not display right in Firefox, what crap, fortunately there are other sources to get that information and I leave that website never to return...their loss, not mine.
Later.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30195400</id>
	<title>MSIE version 8 is not known, according to TFA.</title>
	<author>jbn-o</author>
	<datestamp>1258920600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The problem isn't anything Microsoft doing, it's users who don't upgrade their OS. Did you notice the part where this only affects IE6 and IE7? Upgrade to IE8, and, presto, you're immune!</p></div></blockquote><p>Some users, like office workers, are not in control of the computers they use and cannot switch away from what they were given.  Sometimes they were set up with particular versions of software to suit other programs.  The "Banner" system some universities use, for instance, requires MSIE7 and a particular old version of Sun's Java runtime.  Certain sections of Banner don't work properly with non-MSIE browsers like Firefox.  I understand this is an extremely costly system and switching away is considerably complicated.  I'm not endorsing these choices or claiming any of these choices is wise, but it is there.</p><p>The <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/112209-new-attack-fells-internet.html" title="networkworld.com">article also says the status of MSIE8 is not mentioned by the researchers</a> [networkworld.com]: "Neither company [Symantec and Vupen] was able to confirm that the attack worked on Microsoft's latest browser, IE 8.".  What part of what article were you referring to?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't anything Microsoft doing , it 's users who do n't upgrade their OS .
Did you notice the part where this only affects IE6 and IE7 ?
Upgrade to IE8 , and , presto , you 're immune ! Some users , like office workers , are not in control of the computers they use and can not switch away from what they were given .
Sometimes they were set up with particular versions of software to suit other programs .
The " Banner " system some universities use , for instance , requires MSIE7 and a particular old version of Sun 's Java runtime .
Certain sections of Banner do n't work properly with non-MSIE browsers like Firefox .
I understand this is an extremely costly system and switching away is considerably complicated .
I 'm not endorsing these choices or claiming any of these choices is wise , but it is there.The article also says the status of MSIE8 is not mentioned by the researchers [ networkworld.com ] : " Neither company [ Symantec and Vupen ] was able to confirm that the attack worked on Microsoft 's latest browser , IE 8. " .
What part of what article were you referring to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't anything Microsoft doing, it's users who don't upgrade their OS.
Did you notice the part where this only affects IE6 and IE7?
Upgrade to IE8, and, presto, you're immune!Some users, like office workers, are not in control of the computers they use and cannot switch away from what they were given.
Sometimes they were set up with particular versions of software to suit other programs.
The "Banner" system some universities use, for instance, requires MSIE7 and a particular old version of Sun's Java runtime.
Certain sections of Banner don't work properly with non-MSIE browsers like Firefox.
I understand this is an extremely costly system and switching away is considerably complicated.
I'm not endorsing these choices or claiming any of these choices is wise, but it is there.The article also says the status of MSIE8 is not mentioned by the researchers [networkworld.com]: "Neither company [Symantec and Vupen] was able to confirm that the attack worked on Microsoft's latest browser, IE 8.".
What part of what article were you referring to?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30202568</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258994880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sure do cry a lot for a 5-digit uid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sure do cry a lot for a 5-digit uid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sure do cry a lot for a 5-digit uid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30195182</id>
	<title>Re:Use this to Install IE8</title>
	<author>Thinboy00</author>
	<datestamp>1258918740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Someone should write some code to use this vulnerability to install and run the IE8 update program.</p></div><p>A <b>real</b> white hat would go the whole hog and install Firefox.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone should write some code to use this vulnerability to install and run the IE8 update program.A real white hat would go the whole hog and install Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone should write some code to use this vulnerability to install and run the IE8 update program.A real white hat would go the whole hog and install Firefox.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30198996</id>
	<title>Re:Is that supposed to be news??</title>
	<author>thunderclap</author>
	<datestamp>1258907280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It won't be when it gets hacked and stolen from. An exec and an IT guy who was doing his job will get fired for it, but hey it was only records. its lazyness that is preventing them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't be when it gets hacked and stolen from .
An exec and an IT guy who was doing his job will get fired for it , but hey it was only records .
its lazyness that is preventing them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't be when it gets hacked and stolen from.
An exec and an IT guy who was doing his job will get fired for it, but hey it was only records.
its lazyness that is preventing them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30197472</id>
	<title>Re:Is that supposed to be news??</title>
	<author>Tibia1</author>
	<datestamp>1258893600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have we ever done a poll to see who uses what browser?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have we ever done a poll to see who uses what browser ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have we ever done a poll to see who uses what browser?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30195834</id>
	<title>Re:Oh good Lord *facepalm*</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1258880760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it's only on XP. Vista and Win7 run IE in a sandbox for extra protection (unless you are a silly person and turned that off).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it 's only on XP .
Vista and Win7 run IE in a sandbox for extra protection ( unless you are a silly person and turned that off ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it's only on XP.
Vista and Win7 run IE in a sandbox for extra protection (unless you are a silly person and turned that off).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30196150</id>
	<title>Re:Is that supposed to be news??</title>
	<author>ProfessionalCookie</author>
	<datestamp>1258882920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And there's no excuse for that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And there 's no excuse for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And there's no excuse for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193736</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258908240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slackware 3.0, Redhat 2 and OSX 10.1 all still have exploits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slackware 3.0 , Redhat 2 and OSX 10.1 all still have exploits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slackware 3.0, Redhat 2 and OSX 10.1 all still have exploits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30197396</id>
	<title>Re:Is that supposed to be news??</title>
	<author>Max Littlemore</author>
	<datestamp>1258892820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Care to name the bank? That should be public knowledge - or at least available to all customers and any potential customers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Care to name the bank ?
That should be public knowledge - or at least available to all customers and any potential customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Care to name the bank?
That should be public knowledge - or at least available to all customers and any potential customers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30199028</id>
	<title>Re:Summary needs clarification</title>
	<author>thunderclap</author>
	<datestamp>1258907460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Both! But you already knew that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both !
But you already knew that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both!
But you already knew that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193670</id>
	<title>Virus warning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258907760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As soon as I go to the bug trak web site , my anti virus scanner goes off like crazy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as I go to the bug trak web site , my anti virus scanner goes off like crazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as I go to the bug trak web site , my anti virus scanner goes off like crazy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30200564</id>
	<title>Re:Oh good Lord *facepalm*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258977960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. You THINK you&rsquo;re immune. Because MS censors anyone who openly talks about the bugs. Behind closed doors (Russian cracker forums), IE8 and Windows 7 are as open a barn doors.</p><p>The best hosts for your botnet client are those who are too arrogant to think that they could be the targets. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
You THINK you    re immune .
Because MS censors anyone who openly talks about the bugs .
Behind closed doors ( Russian cracker forums ) , IE8 and Windows 7 are as open a barn doors.The best hosts for your botnet client are those who are too arrogant to think that they could be the targets .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
You THINK you’re immune.
Because MS censors anyone who openly talks about the bugs.
Behind closed doors (Russian cracker forums), IE8 and Windows 7 are as open a barn doors.The best hosts for your botnet client are those who are too arrogant to think that they could be the targets.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194370</id>
	<title>Re:Use this to Install IE8</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1258912620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the UK that would fall foul of the Computer Misuse Act; other countries have similar laws.</p><p>It's also a really, really stupid idea, only marginally less anti-social than writing traditional malware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the UK that would fall foul of the Computer Misuse Act ; other countries have similar laws.It 's also a really , really stupid idea , only marginally less anti-social than writing traditional malware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the UK that would fall foul of the Computer Misuse Act; other countries have similar laws.It's also a really, really stupid idea, only marginally less anti-social than writing traditional malware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30199190</id>
	<title>Re:Oh good Lord *facepalm*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258909020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>David Gerard is a fucking faggot who wears leather, dresses in goth, and married a fat bitch with red hair.  Also, close friend of Roy Schestowitz, the asshole behind BoycottNovell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>David Gerard is a fucking faggot who wears leather , dresses in goth , and married a fat bitch with red hair .
Also , close friend of Roy Schestowitz , the asshole behind BoycottNovell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>David Gerard is a fucking faggot who wears leather, dresses in goth, and married a fat bitch with red hair.
Also, close friend of Roy Schestowitz, the asshole behind BoycottNovell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194634</id>
	<title>Re:A great reason to choose Firefox</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1258914360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There is another story about JS loading with IE7 &amp; IE8. According to 4 of my testers (and a test I did after using the same environment), it seems that we can't login to our site so dep using Internet Explorer 7 and 8, on Win XP (and maybe Vista, not tested). After validating the form, we are back to login page, without any error, but like we are unauthenticated. On the other hand, Firefox does its great job.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
So you use some complex login tracking setup and can't trace why IE is failing. Looks like your setup issue and not something specific to some browser. Mind sharing how you break simple session cookie or id tracking to the point that you can't understand why some browser fails?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is another story about JS loading with IE7 &amp; IE8 .
According to 4 of my testers ( and a test I did after using the same environment ) , it seems that we ca n't login to our site so dep using Internet Explorer 7 and 8 , on Win XP ( and maybe Vista , not tested ) .
After validating the form , we are back to login page , without any error , but like we are unauthenticated .
On the other hand , Firefox does its great job .
So you use some complex login tracking setup and ca n't trace why IE is failing .
Looks like your setup issue and not something specific to some browser .
Mind sharing how you break simple session cookie or id tracking to the point that you ca n't understand why some browser fails ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is another story about JS loading with IE7 &amp; IE8.
According to 4 of my testers (and a test I did after using the same environment), it seems that we can't login to our site so dep using Internet Explorer 7 and 8, on Win XP (and maybe Vista, not tested).
After validating the form, we are back to login page, without any error, but like we are unauthenticated.
On the other hand, Firefox does its great job.
So you use some complex login tracking setup and can't trace why IE is failing.
Looks like your setup issue and not something specific to some browser.
Mind sharing how you break simple session cookie or id tracking to the point that you can't understand why some browser fails?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194262</id>
	<title>Re:Is that supposed to be news??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258912020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I work for a very large bank, and IE 6 is the corporate standard. The banking platform is only designed to work with IE6. Some of the internal admin tools don't work with IE8.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a very large bank , and IE 6 is the corporate standard .
The banking platform is only designed to work with IE6 .
Some of the internal admin tools do n't work with IE8 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a very large bank, and IE 6 is the corporate standard.
The banking platform is only designed to work with IE6.
Some of the internal admin tools don't work with IE8.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194570</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258913940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh no I better check my version of IE, Wait I run Linux. firefox is still okay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no I better check my version of IE , Wait I run Linux .
firefox is still okay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no I better check my version of IE, Wait I run Linux.
firefox is still okay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193924</id>
	<title>Re:Not aware of a patch?</title>
	<author>supersloshy</author>
	<datestamp>1258909680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They said that it affects <i>old versions of internet explorer</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They said that it affects old versions of internet explorer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They said that it affects old versions of internet explorer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193910</id>
	<title>Re:Not aware of a patch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258909560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE 8 is not a patch since it requires reading a new EULA. I'll stick with the version that does less spying thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE 8 is not a patch since it requires reading a new EULA .
I 'll stick with the version that does less spying thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE 8 is not a patch since it requires reading a new EULA.
I'll stick with the version that does less spying thank you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194656</id>
	<title>Re:Oh good Lord *facepalm*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258914480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem isn't anything Microsoft doing, it's users who don't upgrade their OS. Did you notice the part where this only affects IE6 and IE7? Upgrade to IE8, and, presto, you're immune!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't anything Microsoft doing , it 's users who do n't upgrade their OS .
Did you notice the part where this only affects IE6 and IE7 ?
Upgrade to IE8 , and , presto , you 're immune !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't anything Microsoft doing, it's users who don't upgrade their OS.
Did you notice the part where this only affects IE6 and IE7?
Upgrade to IE8, and, presto, you're immune!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193682</id>
	<title>Is that supposed to be news??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258907880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, old, unpatched browser versions can be exploited. Is this a joke?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , old , unpatched browser versions can be exploited .
Is this a joke ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, old, unpatched browser versions can be exploited.
Is this a joke?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193900</id>
	<title>Re:Not aware of a patch?</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1258909560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>VUPEN Security is not aware of any vendor-supplied patch.</p></div><p>I know most of us would like to pretend IE doesn't exist, but they haven't even heard of IE 8?</p></div><p>Microsoft doesn't make IE 8 for older versions of Windows such as Windows 2000. It'd be like saying Windows 7 is a "vendor-supplied patch" for Windows Vista.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>VUPEN Security is not aware of any vendor-supplied patch.I know most of us would like to pretend IE does n't exist , but they have n't even heard of IE 8 ? Microsoft does n't make IE 8 for older versions of Windows such as Windows 2000 .
It 'd be like saying Windows 7 is a " vendor-supplied patch " for Windows Vista .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VUPEN Security is not aware of any vendor-supplied patch.I know most of us would like to pretend IE doesn't exist, but they haven't even heard of IE 8?Microsoft doesn't make IE 8 for older versions of Windows such as Windows 2000.
It'd be like saying Windows 7 is a "vendor-supplied patch" for Windows Vista.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30195388</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258920540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only people still using internet exploder are people who don't care about security. They have ignored more than enough warnings and deserve what they get.</p><p>The rest of the world is already using firefox, opera, or whatever the OS X browser is called.</p></div><p>I care about security, and I think you would be hard pressed to document that Firefox is more secure than IE8 in protected mode (sandboxed, reduced user privileges). Yes you can find reported vulnerabilities in IE8, but most security companies announce far more for Firefox these days. Including pretty severe ones like we discussed here a couple of days ago: <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/11/20/1257232/Zero-Day-Vulnerabilities-In-Firefox-Extensions" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/11/20/1257232/Zero-Day-Vulnerabilities-In-Firefox-Extensions</a> [slashdot.org]
<br> <br>
<b>"Firefox most vulnerable browser, Safari close second"</b>: <a href="http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=8489" title="net-security.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=8489</a> [net-security.org] . Secunia is saying pretty much the same thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only people still using internet exploder are people who do n't care about security .
They have ignored more than enough warnings and deserve what they get.The rest of the world is already using firefox , opera , or whatever the OS X browser is called.I care about security , and I think you would be hard pressed to document that Firefox is more secure than IE8 in protected mode ( sandboxed , reduced user privileges ) .
Yes you can find reported vulnerabilities in IE8 , but most security companies announce far more for Firefox these days .
Including pretty severe ones like we discussed here a couple of days ago : http : //it.slashdot.org/story/09/11/20/1257232/Zero-Day-Vulnerabilities-In-Firefox-Extensions [ slashdot.org ] " Firefox most vulnerable browser , Safari close second " : http : //www.net-security.org/secworld.php ? id = 8489 [ net-security.org ] .
Secunia is saying pretty much the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only people still using internet exploder are people who don't care about security.
They have ignored more than enough warnings and deserve what they get.The rest of the world is already using firefox, opera, or whatever the OS X browser is called.I care about security, and I think you would be hard pressed to document that Firefox is more secure than IE8 in protected mode (sandboxed, reduced user privileges).
Yes you can find reported vulnerabilities in IE8, but most security companies announce far more for Firefox these days.
Including pretty severe ones like we discussed here a couple of days ago: http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/11/20/1257232/Zero-Day-Vulnerabilities-In-Firefox-Extensions [slashdot.org]
 
"Firefox most vulnerable browser, Safari close second": http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=8489 [net-security.org] .
Secunia is saying pretty much the same thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193840</id>
	<title>A great reason to choose Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258909140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is another story about JS loading with IE7 &amp; IE8.
According to 4 of my testers (and a test I did after using the same environment), it seems that we can't login to our site <a href="http://www.sodepabc.com/" title="sodepabc.com" rel="nofollow">so dep</a> [sodepabc.com] using Internet Explorer 7 and 8, on Win XP (and maybe Vista, not tested). After validating the form, we are back to login page, without any error, but like we are unauthenticated.
On the other hand, Firefox does its great job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is another story about JS loading with IE7 &amp; IE8 .
According to 4 of my testers ( and a test I did after using the same environment ) , it seems that we ca n't login to our site so dep [ sodepabc.com ] using Internet Explorer 7 and 8 , on Win XP ( and maybe Vista , not tested ) .
After validating the form , we are back to login page , without any error , but like we are unauthenticated .
On the other hand , Firefox does its great job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is another story about JS loading with IE7 &amp; IE8.
According to 4 of my testers (and a test I did after using the same environment), it seems that we can't login to our site so dep [sodepabc.com] using Internet Explorer 7 and 8, on Win XP (and maybe Vista, not tested).
After validating the form, we are back to login page, without any error, but like we are unauthenticated.
On the other hand, Firefox does its great job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30195084</id>
	<title>Re:Oh good Lord *facepalm*</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1258918080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;59\% of all Windows machines on the Internet being infected with malware and under the control of botnets.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;Windows:Mac:Linux virus proportions at approximately 100\%:0\%:0\%<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;</p><p>Please provide proof or retract. Thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; 59 \ % of all Windows machines on the Internet being infected with malware and under the control of botnets. &gt; &gt; &gt; Windows : Mac : Linux virus proportions at approximately 100 \ % : 0 \ % : 0 \ % &gt; &gt; &gt; Please provide proof or retract .
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;59\% of all Windows machines on the Internet being infected with malware and under the control of botnets.&gt;&gt;&gt;Windows:Mac:Linux virus proportions at approximately 100\%:0\%:0\%&gt;&gt;&gt;Please provide proof or retract.
Thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30196600</id>
	<title>Re:Summary needs clarification</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1258887000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it too much to hope that someone is using this attack vector to upgrade corporate computers from IE6 to something that can render web pages correctly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it too much to hope that someone is using this attack vector to upgrade corporate computers from IE6 to something that can render web pages correctly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it too much to hope that someone is using this attack vector to upgrade corporate computers from IE6 to something that can render web pages correctly?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194918</id>
	<title>Re:Virus warning</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1258916640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no virus scanner, as I use Linux.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no virus scanner , as I use Linux .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no virus scanner, as I use Linux.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193788</id>
	<title>Re:Is that supposed to be news??</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1258908780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It mentioned versions 6 &amp; 7. Considering how long people hold onto their verison of IE, it will be ages until IE7 disappears. Also, MS does have some contracts with companies that means they're stuck on Win 2k for now which means nothing greater than IE6. Granted these companies could use FF but understandably they're paying for support from MS and want to use a browser they will support.
<br> <br>
If MS is going to be taking money for something like this then they should still be supporting IE6 and patching up its holes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It mentioned versions 6 &amp; 7 .
Considering how long people hold onto their verison of IE , it will be ages until IE7 disappears .
Also , MS does have some contracts with companies that means they 're stuck on Win 2k for now which means nothing greater than IE6 .
Granted these companies could use FF but understandably they 're paying for support from MS and want to use a browser they will support .
If MS is going to be taking money for something like this then they should still be supporting IE6 and patching up its holes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It mentioned versions 6 &amp; 7.
Considering how long people hold onto their verison of IE, it will be ages until IE7 disappears.
Also, MS does have some contracts with companies that means they're stuck on Win 2k for now which means nothing greater than IE6.
Granted these companies could use FF but understandably they're paying for support from MS and want to use a browser they will support.
If MS is going to be taking money for something like this then they should still be supporting IE6 and patching up its holes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30198024</id>
	<title>Re:Hypocrits!</title>
	<author>Psaakyrn</author>
	<datestamp>1258898640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There already is a patch, it's called IE 8.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There already is a patch , it 's called IE 8 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There already is a patch, it's called IE 8.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194604</id>
	<title>Re:Is that supposed to be news??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258914180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Using SAP by any chance ?</p><p>In my former company, they use SAP and it's absolutely an IE only application for its web interface. It doesn't work *at all* with Firefox. At least that was the case when I was working there (We were using SAP ECC6)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Using SAP by any chance ? In my former company , they use SAP and it 's absolutely an IE only application for its web interface .
It does n't work * at all * with Firefox .
At least that was the case when I was working there ( We were using SAP ECC6 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using SAP by any chance ?In my former company, they use SAP and it's absolutely an IE only application for its web interface.
It doesn't work *at all* with Firefox.
At least that was the case when I was working there (We were using SAP ECC6)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194248</id>
	<title>Re:Not aware of a patch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258911900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I know most of us would like to pretend IE doesn't exist, but they haven't even heard of IE 8?</i> <br> <br>There are plenty of web apps (especially in the "Enterprise" environment) which depend of quirks of specific browsers. Most commonly IE6. Using a different browser means making major changes. At which point it probably dosn't matter if the change were to be to Firefox, Opera, Safari, etc. Indeed there are versions of Windows which won't run IE8, but will run modern non Microsoft browsers.<br>Indeed if things are web based then without a requirement for IE something akin to "Google OS" might make rather more sense than Windows. Especially if the result is small enough to be reasonably started by PXE.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know most of us would like to pretend IE does n't exist , but they have n't even heard of IE 8 ?
There are plenty of web apps ( especially in the " Enterprise " environment ) which depend of quirks of specific browsers .
Most commonly IE6 .
Using a different browser means making major changes .
At which point it probably dos n't matter if the change were to be to Firefox , Opera , Safari , etc .
Indeed there are versions of Windows which wo n't run IE8 , but will run modern non Microsoft browsers.Indeed if things are web based then without a requirement for IE something akin to " Google OS " might make rather more sense than Windows .
Especially if the result is small enough to be reasonably started by PXE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know most of us would like to pretend IE doesn't exist, but they haven't even heard of IE 8?
There are plenty of web apps (especially in the "Enterprise" environment) which depend of quirks of specific browsers.
Most commonly IE6.
Using a different browser means making major changes.
At which point it probably dosn't matter if the change were to be to Firefox, Opera, Safari, etc.
Indeed there are versions of Windows which won't run IE8, but will run modern non Microsoft browsers.Indeed if things are web based then without a requirement for IE something akin to "Google OS" might make rather more sense than Windows.
Especially if the result is small enough to be reasonably started by PXE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193886</id>
	<title>What the world needs</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1258909440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is a definitive software engineering treatise on the history of IE security exploits.</p><p>It is certainly true that there is a kind of economic network effect going here.  For many years we saw so many web sites that only worked properly with IE because IE was so dominant. The same factor naturally attracts black hats looking for systems to exploit.  Once we factor that out, what can we learn from how IE was conceived and maintained?</p><p>Did clumsy code-reuse and maintenance play a significant role?  That is did they stretch existing code to do things it hadn't been designed to do because it was close enough to pass the demo test on time?  That's a decision we all face; we'd all *like* to rewrite things better when we take a look at them, but in the real world we've got to ship good enough code on a deadline to justify our salary. I think MS might be particularly vulnerable to the "killer demo" imperative. They are a business that is dependent on organizations choosing entire MS product stacks because they *anticipate* something they're going to need in the future will be dependent on something else in that stack.</p><p>Did "business strategy" considerations confuse priorities for system requirements? E.g., The decision to make IE a fundamental part of the OS allowed MS to gain control of (destroy) the browser market while evading anti-trust regulation. Did that result in undesirable coupling of IE to the underlying system?  Did the desire to leverage browser market dominance to give other MS products a competitive advantage create confusion in requirements or priorities?</p><p>Were there cultural attitudes that made security and quality secondary?  E.g. Did MS value having shiny new features soon before doing a quality implementation?  Did their success at achieving effective control of the browser market cause them to under-invest in maintenance because they had no competition worth worrying about?</p><p>These are the kinds of things I'd like to know. It's almost past the point where any individual security flaw in IE is interesting to me, because there have been so many and will be so many more.  It's time for a really first rate summing up by somebody who knows what he's talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is a definitive software engineering treatise on the history of IE security exploits.It is certainly true that there is a kind of economic network effect going here .
For many years we saw so many web sites that only worked properly with IE because IE was so dominant .
The same factor naturally attracts black hats looking for systems to exploit .
Once we factor that out , what can we learn from how IE was conceived and maintained ? Did clumsy code-reuse and maintenance play a significant role ?
That is did they stretch existing code to do things it had n't been designed to do because it was close enough to pass the demo test on time ?
That 's a decision we all face ; we 'd all * like * to rewrite things better when we take a look at them , but in the real world we 've got to ship good enough code on a deadline to justify our salary .
I think MS might be particularly vulnerable to the " killer demo " imperative .
They are a business that is dependent on organizations choosing entire MS product stacks because they * anticipate * something they 're going to need in the future will be dependent on something else in that stack.Did " business strategy " considerations confuse priorities for system requirements ?
E.g. , The decision to make IE a fundamental part of the OS allowed MS to gain control of ( destroy ) the browser market while evading anti-trust regulation .
Did that result in undesirable coupling of IE to the underlying system ?
Did the desire to leverage browser market dominance to give other MS products a competitive advantage create confusion in requirements or priorities ? Were there cultural attitudes that made security and quality secondary ?
E.g. Did MS value having shiny new features soon before doing a quality implementation ?
Did their success at achieving effective control of the browser market cause them to under-invest in maintenance because they had no competition worth worrying about ? These are the kinds of things I 'd like to know .
It 's almost past the point where any individual security flaw in IE is interesting to me , because there have been so many and will be so many more .
It 's time for a really first rate summing up by somebody who knows what he 's talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is a definitive software engineering treatise on the history of IE security exploits.It is certainly true that there is a kind of economic network effect going here.
For many years we saw so many web sites that only worked properly with IE because IE was so dominant.
The same factor naturally attracts black hats looking for systems to exploit.
Once we factor that out, what can we learn from how IE was conceived and maintained?Did clumsy code-reuse and maintenance play a significant role?
That is did they stretch existing code to do things it hadn't been designed to do because it was close enough to pass the demo test on time?
That's a decision we all face; we'd all *like* to rewrite things better when we take a look at them, but in the real world we've got to ship good enough code on a deadline to justify our salary.
I think MS might be particularly vulnerable to the "killer demo" imperative.
They are a business that is dependent on organizations choosing entire MS product stacks because they *anticipate* something they're going to need in the future will be dependent on something else in that stack.Did "business strategy" considerations confuse priorities for system requirements?
E.g., The decision to make IE a fundamental part of the OS allowed MS to gain control of (destroy) the browser market while evading anti-trust regulation.
Did that result in undesirable coupling of IE to the underlying system?
Did the desire to leverage browser market dominance to give other MS products a competitive advantage create confusion in requirements or priorities?Were there cultural attitudes that made security and quality secondary?
E.g. Did MS value having shiny new features soon before doing a quality implementation?
Did their success at achieving effective control of the browser market cause them to under-invest in maintenance because they had no competition worth worrying about?These are the kinds of things I'd like to know.
It's almost past the point where any individual security flaw in IE is interesting to me, because there have been so many and will be so many more.
It's time for a really first rate summing up by somebody who knows what he's talking about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194238</id>
	<title>Use this to Install IE8</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258911840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone should write some code to use this vulnerability to install and run the IE8 update program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone should write some code to use this vulnerability to install and run the IE8 update program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone should write some code to use this vulnerability to install and run the IE8 update program.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193688</id>
	<title>Oh good Lord *facepalm*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258907940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft Windows has once again trounced all comers in security, with a recent survey showing 59\% of all Windows machines on the Internet being infected with malware and under the control of botnets. Malware rose 15\% just from August to September this year.

</p><p>Windows users continued to be stupidly complacent Typhoid Marys, telling Mac and Linux users that they were every bit as susceptible to viruses and Trojans, despite the Windows:Mac:Linux virus proportions in the wild continuing at approximately 100\%:0\%:0\% for the fifteenth year in a row, and pumping out gigabytes of spam and denial-of-service attacks from their thoroughly 0wn3d computing cesspits.

</p><p>&ldquo;The truth is out,&rdquo; said Steve Ballmer, <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2009/10/06/microsoft-windows-beats-all-in-security-tests/" title="today.com" rel="nofollow">taking care not to wash his hands</a> [today.com] when preparing the food for his Windows 7 House Party. &ldquo;Mac and Linux users are just too pussy for viruses. Gotta keep your immune system up! What are you, some sort of faggot? Too artsy or nerdy for MANLY food?&rdquo;

</p><p>The time on the digital clock behind him changed at random as he foamed slightly at the mouth. &ldquo;Windows &mdash; we&rsquo;re NUMBER ONE! And here you were saying Windows was a load of &lsquo;number two.&rsquo;&rdquo;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft Windows has once again trounced all comers in security , with a recent survey showing 59 \ % of all Windows machines on the Internet being infected with malware and under the control of botnets .
Malware rose 15 \ % just from August to September this year .
Windows users continued to be stupidly complacent Typhoid Marys , telling Mac and Linux users that they were every bit as susceptible to viruses and Trojans , despite the Windows : Mac : Linux virus proportions in the wild continuing at approximately 100 \ % : 0 \ % : 0 \ % for the fifteenth year in a row , and pumping out gigabytes of spam and denial-of-service attacks from their thoroughly 0wn3d computing cesspits .
   The truth is out ,    said Steve Ballmer , taking care not to wash his hands [ today.com ] when preparing the food for his Windows 7 House Party .
   Mac and Linux users are just too pussy for viruses .
Got ta keep your immune system up !
What are you , some sort of faggot ?
Too artsy or nerdy for MANLY food ?    The time on the digital clock behind him changed at random as he foamed slightly at the mouth .
   Windows    we    re NUMBER ONE !
And here you were saying Windows was a load of    number two.      </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft Windows has once again trounced all comers in security, with a recent survey showing 59\% of all Windows machines on the Internet being infected with malware and under the control of botnets.
Malware rose 15\% just from August to September this year.
Windows users continued to be stupidly complacent Typhoid Marys, telling Mac and Linux users that they were every bit as susceptible to viruses and Trojans, despite the Windows:Mac:Linux virus proportions in the wild continuing at approximately 100\%:0\%:0\% for the fifteenth year in a row, and pumping out gigabytes of spam and denial-of-service attacks from their thoroughly 0wn3d computing cesspits.
“The truth is out,” said Steve Ballmer, taking care not to wash his hands [today.com] when preparing the food for his Windows 7 House Party.
“Mac and Linux users are just too pussy for viruses.
Gotta keep your immune system up!
What are you, some sort of faggot?
Too artsy or nerdy for MANLY food?”

The time on the digital clock behind him changed at random as he foamed slightly at the mouth.
“Windows — we’re NUMBER ONE!
And here you were saying Windows was a load of ‘number two.’”</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193728</id>
	<title>CSS Behvaiors?</title>
	<author>DontLickJesus</author>
	<datestamp>1258908180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I'm interpreting this correctly, it would appear to be a buffer overflow attack against the "style" element. Seeing that IE6-7 are the only current browsers that handle CSS behaviors (basically javascript in CSS) I'm going to make an educated guess and say it stems from the validation (and execution of) Javascript in CSS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm interpreting this correctly , it would appear to be a buffer overflow attack against the " style " element .
Seeing that IE6-7 are the only current browsers that handle CSS behaviors ( basically javascript in CSS ) I 'm going to make an educated guess and say it stems from the validation ( and execution of ) Javascript in CSS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm interpreting this correctly, it would appear to be a buffer overflow attack against the "style" element.
Seeing that IE6-7 are the only current browsers that handle CSS behaviors (basically javascript in CSS) I'm going to make an educated guess and say it stems from the validation (and execution of) Javascript in CSS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193704</id>
	<title>Summary needs clarification</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258908000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"According to security vendor Symantec, the code does not always work properly, but it could be used to install unauthorized software on a victim's computer."</p><p>So, are they referring to IE or the attack code?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" According to security vendor Symantec , the code does not always work properly , but it could be used to install unauthorized software on a victim 's computer .
" So , are they referring to IE or the attack code ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"According to security vendor Symantec, the code does not always work properly, but it could be used to install unauthorized software on a victim's computer.
"So, are they referring to IE or the attack code?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30196258</id>
	<title>Re:Oh good Lord *facepalm*</title>
	<author>westyvw</author>
	<datestamp>1258883880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is this fascination with "upgrading"? IE 8 is not much of an "upgrade" at all, its another version that has its share of problems. I really dislike the windows world of versioning, FOSS generally makes a lot more sense to me. If there are security issues with IE, in 6 7 or 8 they should be fixed as incremental versions. If a complete re-write happened, then it should be released as a new version, and its not really an upgrade, but a change.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is this fascination with " upgrading " ?
IE 8 is not much of an " upgrade " at all , its another version that has its share of problems .
I really dislike the windows world of versioning , FOSS generally makes a lot more sense to me .
If there are security issues with IE , in 6 7 or 8 they should be fixed as incremental versions .
If a complete re-write happened , then it should be released as a new version , and its not really an upgrade , but a change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is this fascination with "upgrading"?
IE 8 is not much of an "upgrade" at all, its another version that has its share of problems.
I really dislike the windows world of versioning, FOSS generally makes a lot more sense to me.
If there are security issues with IE, in 6 7 or 8 they should be fixed as incremental versions.
If a complete re-write happened, then it should be released as a new version, and its not really an upgrade, but a change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30196580</id>
	<title>Re:Oh good Lord *facepalm*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258886940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not all of us can afford the cost of updating our OS...</p><p>Of the 2 systems I own, one is a laptop with a nonfunctional screen (which is still semi-useful for some things via ssh) and the other is a desktop with a CRT. Neither have over 768MB of RAM.</p><p>This isn't going to change anytime soon.</p><p>I just don't have the money to update my hardware, as I'd need to do to run Vista or Win 7 (much less the price of the OS), but I can run fully updated Linux systems no problem.</p><p>I realize this article is about IE, but you mentioned the OS and XP is no longer really supported.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not all of us can afford the cost of updating our OS...Of the 2 systems I own , one is a laptop with a nonfunctional screen ( which is still semi-useful for some things via ssh ) and the other is a desktop with a CRT .
Neither have over 768MB of RAM.This is n't going to change anytime soon.I just do n't have the money to update my hardware , as I 'd need to do to run Vista or Win 7 ( much less the price of the OS ) , but I can run fully updated Linux systems no problem.I realize this article is about IE , but you mentioned the OS and XP is no longer really supported .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not all of us can afford the cost of updating our OS...Of the 2 systems I own, one is a laptop with a nonfunctional screen (which is still semi-useful for some things via ssh) and the other is a desktop with a CRT.
Neither have over 768MB of RAM.This isn't going to change anytime soon.I just don't have the money to update my hardware, as I'd need to do to run Vista or Win 7 (much less the price of the OS), but I can run fully updated Linux systems no problem.I realize this article is about IE, but you mentioned the OS and XP is no longer really supported.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30198242</id>
	<title>Re:Hypocrits!</title>
	<author>Kingrames</author>
	<datestamp>1258900260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Welcome to 2009.<br>
Whether it is known by the public is irrelevant, it's already in the hands of crackers and terrorists.<br>
<br>
Once the people know about it, THEN it's possible for some good to come of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to 2009 .
Whether it is known by the public is irrelevant , it 's already in the hands of crackers and terrorists .
Once the people know about it , THEN it 's possible for some good to come of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to 2009.
Whether it is known by the public is irrelevant, it's already in the hands of crackers and terrorists.
Once the people know about it, THEN it's possible for some good to come of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194556</id>
	<title>Re:What the world needs</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1258913820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Did clumsy code-reuse and maintenance play a significant role? "</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't know.  Let's just go grab the code and take a loo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... oh, wait.  Never mind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Did clumsy code-reuse and maintenance play a significant role ?
" I do n't know .
Let 's just go grab the code and take a loo .... oh , wait .
Never mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Did clumsy code-reuse and maintenance play a significant role?
"I don't know.
Let's just go grab the code and take a loo .... oh, wait.
Never mind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30196944</id>
	<title>Hindsight is no joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258889160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not about old and unpatched.  It is about looking back and thinking,"Hmm.  If it was posted to Bugtraq recently and affects old browsers then, in all likelihood, it was known almost immediately when the versions came out."</p><p>IOW, you can safely deduce that this bug has been in use for years but, like an ostrich, what people do not see right in front of them still exists.</p><p>Consider the most likely group of people to have known about the exploit long before it was made popularly known:  inner circle developers, hackers with code and memory analysis tools, and, likely, your friendly neighborhood government surveillance agencies.</p><p>If it can be used to install rogue code into the system do not look for system crashing viruses or resource hogging worms.  How many kB does it take for a keylogger and a relay for information of interest (URLs visited, installed programs, identifying information, registry keys, etc.)?</p><p>If you consider the state of operating system security over the last ten years it is safe to operate under the assumption that your system is being monitored somewhat "Echelon" style:  that is to seriously consider that the system is quietly exploited and all activity is being funnelled into a database which is mined and cross-referenced for keywords (URLs, registry keys, identifying information, etc.).</p><p>Do not think that MacOS or Linux or even OpenBSD is immune.  Zero day exploits are zero day exploits and every web browser has them.  The more important consideration, once you just flatly accept the truth, is:  who is most likely to be making use of this... and why?  With that question firmly in mind you will be able to logically assess each and every security report which appears in daily news.  What you don't know \_is\_ being used against you.  Consider that to be a real, daily, constant fact.</p><p>Treat it the way you would honesty consider that your bank, your landlord, and your local locksmith quite likely have no trouble obtaining a key to your front door and, no matter how much you think you have rights, they will never admit to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not about old and unpatched .
It is about looking back and thinking , " Hmm .
If it was posted to Bugtraq recently and affects old browsers then , in all likelihood , it was known almost immediately when the versions came out .
" IOW , you can safely deduce that this bug has been in use for years but , like an ostrich , what people do not see right in front of them still exists.Consider the most likely group of people to have known about the exploit long before it was made popularly known : inner circle developers , hackers with code and memory analysis tools , and , likely , your friendly neighborhood government surveillance agencies.If it can be used to install rogue code into the system do not look for system crashing viruses or resource hogging worms .
How many kB does it take for a keylogger and a relay for information of interest ( URLs visited , installed programs , identifying information , registry keys , etc .
) ? If you consider the state of operating system security over the last ten years it is safe to operate under the assumption that your system is being monitored somewhat " Echelon " style : that is to seriously consider that the system is quietly exploited and all activity is being funnelled into a database which is mined and cross-referenced for keywords ( URLs , registry keys , identifying information , etc .
) .Do not think that MacOS or Linux or even OpenBSD is immune .
Zero day exploits are zero day exploits and every web browser has them .
The more important consideration , once you just flatly accept the truth , is : who is most likely to be making use of this... and why ?
With that question firmly in mind you will be able to logically assess each and every security report which appears in daily news .
What you do n't know \ _is \ _ being used against you .
Consider that to be a real , daily , constant fact.Treat it the way you would honesty consider that your bank , your landlord , and your local locksmith quite likely have no trouble obtaining a key to your front door and , no matter how much you think you have rights , they will never admit to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not about old and unpatched.
It is about looking back and thinking,"Hmm.
If it was posted to Bugtraq recently and affects old browsers then, in all likelihood, it was known almost immediately when the versions came out.
"IOW, you can safely deduce that this bug has been in use for years but, like an ostrich, what people do not see right in front of them still exists.Consider the most likely group of people to have known about the exploit long before it was made popularly known:  inner circle developers, hackers with code and memory analysis tools, and, likely, your friendly neighborhood government surveillance agencies.If it can be used to install rogue code into the system do not look for system crashing viruses or resource hogging worms.
How many kB does it take for a keylogger and a relay for information of interest (URLs visited, installed programs, identifying information, registry keys, etc.
)?If you consider the state of operating system security over the last ten years it is safe to operate under the assumption that your system is being monitored somewhat "Echelon" style:  that is to seriously consider that the system is quietly exploited and all activity is being funnelled into a database which is mined and cross-referenced for keywords (URLs, registry keys, identifying information, etc.
).Do not think that MacOS or Linux or even OpenBSD is immune.
Zero day exploits are zero day exploits and every web browser has them.
The more important consideration, once you just flatly accept the truth, is:  who is most likely to be making use of this... and why?
With that question firmly in mind you will be able to logically assess each and every security report which appears in daily news.
What you don't know \_is\_ being used against you.
Consider that to be a real, daily, constant fact.Treat it the way you would honesty consider that your bank, your landlord, and your local locksmith quite likely have no trouble obtaining a key to your front door and, no matter how much you think you have rights, they will never admit to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193996</id>
	<title>Re:Virus warning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258910160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That should tell you something about your virus scanner...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That should tell you something about your virus scanner.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That should tell you something about your virus scanner...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193762</id>
	<title>Not aware of a patch?</title>
	<author>kjart</author>
	<datestamp>1258908540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <b>Affected Products</b>

</p><p>Microsoft Internet Explorer 7
<br>Microsoft Internet Explorer 6

</p><p> <b>Solution</b>

</p><p>Disable Active Scripting in the Internet and Local intranet security zones.

</p><p>VUPEN Security is not aware of any vendor-supplied patch.</p></div></blockquote><p>I know most of us would like to pretend IE doesn't exist, but they haven't even heard of IE 8?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Affected Products Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 Solution Disable Active Scripting in the Internet and Local intranet security zones .
VUPEN Security is not aware of any vendor-supplied patch.I know most of us would like to pretend IE does n't exist , but they have n't even heard of IE 8 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Affected Products

Microsoft Internet Explorer 7
Microsoft Internet Explorer 6

 Solution

Disable Active Scripting in the Internet and Local intranet security zones.
VUPEN Security is not aware of any vendor-supplied patch.I know most of us would like to pretend IE doesn't exist, but they haven't even heard of IE 8?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193702</id>
	<title>Versions 6 &amp; 7</title>
	<author>Travis Mansbridge</author>
	<datestamp>1258908000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Specifically versions 6 &amp; 7, says the article.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Specifically versions 6 &amp; 7 , says the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Specifically versions 6 &amp; 7, says the article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194494</id>
	<title>Hypocrits!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258913340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, isn't the responsible thing to do to notify Microsoft, and given them adequate time to produce a patch?</p><p>By posting the exploit to a public list, this guy is basically handing the bad guys a weapon.  That's criminal.  But because it's a Microsoft product, the Slashdot folks just eat that up -- Hey, fuck'em, they're running Wind0ze!!!111</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , is n't the responsible thing to do to notify Microsoft , and given them adequate time to produce a patch ? By posting the exploit to a public list , this guy is basically handing the bad guys a weapon .
That 's criminal .
But because it 's a Microsoft product , the Slashdot folks just eat that up -- Hey , fuck'em , they 're running Wind0ze ! !
! 111</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, isn't the responsible thing to do to notify Microsoft, and given them adequate time to produce a patch?By posting the exploit to a public list, this guy is basically handing the bad guys a weapon.
That's criminal.
But because it's a Microsoft product, the Slashdot folks just eat that up -- Hey, fuck'em, they're running Wind0ze!!
!111</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30207944</id>
	<title>An open source idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258978860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now how to use this to install FireFox and upgrade IE on unsuspecting IE6/7 users?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now how to use this to install FireFox and upgrade IE on unsuspecting IE6/7 users ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now how to use this to install FireFox and upgrade IE on unsuspecting IE6/7 users?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30210866</id>
	<title>titti</title>
	<author>thisispurefud</author>
	<datestamp>1259094960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mitigating Factors:
Internet Explorer 8 is not affected and Protected Mode in Internet Explorer 7 in Windows Vista limits the impact of the vulnerability.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mitigating Factors : Internet Explorer 8 is not affected and Protected Mode in Internet Explorer 7 in Windows Vista limits the impact of the vulnerability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mitigating Factors:
Internet Explorer 8 is not affected and Protected Mode in Internet Explorer 7 in Windows Vista limits the impact of the vulnerability.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194310</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258912380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The only people still using internet exploder are people who don't care about security.</i></p><p>Not true. we're using IE7 at my company because of some boneheaded decisions way back when that tied online applications to the browser version. That is, they used browser specific HTML that doesn't work correctly with IE8.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only people still using internet exploder are people who do n't care about security.Not true .
we 're using IE7 at my company because of some boneheaded decisions way back when that tied online applications to the browser version .
That is , they used browser specific HTML that does n't work correctly with IE8 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only people still using internet exploder are people who don't care about security.Not true.
we're using IE7 at my company because of some boneheaded decisions way back when that tied online applications to the browser version.
That is, they used browser specific HTML that doesn't work correctly with IE8.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193816</id>
	<title>Firefox</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1258908960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only people still using internet exploder are people who don't care about security. They have ignored more than enough warnings and deserve what they get.</p><p>The rest of the world is already using firefox, opera, or whatever the OS X browser is called.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only people still using internet exploder are people who do n't care about security .
They have ignored more than enough warnings and deserve what they get.The rest of the world is already using firefox , opera , or whatever the OS X browser is called .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only people still using internet exploder are people who don't care about security.
They have ignored more than enough warnings and deserve what they get.The rest of the world is already using firefox, opera, or whatever the OS X browser is called.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194428</id>
	<title>U.S. Government</title>
	<author>WED Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1258912980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a huge problem. Many U.S. Government agencies have yet to move off of IE6. Especially the military. Mostly due to IT management contracts that require the gov't to pay for every little upgrade action. For a simple upgrade, one agency gets tagged per profile per month by the company that runs their IT. That same company has a policy of being 2 versions behind current. Meaning, it is actual policy to be running IE6, Office 2003, and XP/Server 2003. The approval process is so overtaken with red tape and time that most give up trying to get upgrades. One agency just recently removed NETSCAPE from their builds. NETSCAPE!</p><p>All it takes is a hostile government to set up a few magnet sites, get banner ads deployed, and bam, your U.S. Government has rampant infections. Is it any wonder we read, from time to time, about gov't employees being prohibited from going to certain sites?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a huge problem .
Many U.S. Government agencies have yet to move off of IE6 .
Especially the military .
Mostly due to IT management contracts that require the gov't to pay for every little upgrade action .
For a simple upgrade , one agency gets tagged per profile per month by the company that runs their IT .
That same company has a policy of being 2 versions behind current .
Meaning , it is actual policy to be running IE6 , Office 2003 , and XP/Server 2003 .
The approval process is so overtaken with red tape and time that most give up trying to get upgrades .
One agency just recently removed NETSCAPE from their builds .
NETSCAPE ! All it takes is a hostile government to set up a few magnet sites , get banner ads deployed , and bam , your U.S. Government has rampant infections .
Is it any wonder we read , from time to time , about gov't employees being prohibited from going to certain sites ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a huge problem.
Many U.S. Government agencies have yet to move off of IE6.
Especially the military.
Mostly due to IT management contracts that require the gov't to pay for every little upgrade action.
For a simple upgrade, one agency gets tagged per profile per month by the company that runs their IT.
That same company has a policy of being 2 versions behind current.
Meaning, it is actual policy to be running IE6, Office 2003, and XP/Server 2003.
The approval process is so overtaken with red tape and time that most give up trying to get upgrades.
One agency just recently removed NETSCAPE from their builds.
NETSCAPE!All it takes is a hostile government to set up a few magnet sites, get banner ads deployed, and bam, your U.S. Government has rampant infections.
Is it any wonder we read, from time to time, about gov't employees being prohibited from going to certain sites?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194300</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1258912320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The only people still using internet exploder are people who don't care about security.</i></p><p>Or perhaps they just don't know about that sort of thing, and expect their computer to just work, just as their TV, fridge, microwave, phone, etc all just work?</p><p><i>or whatever the OS X browser is called</i></p><p>First you lambaste people for not knowing enough about IE and its alternatives, then you admit to not knowing enough about Safari. Beautiful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only people still using internet exploder are people who do n't care about security.Or perhaps they just do n't know about that sort of thing , and expect their computer to just work , just as their TV , fridge , microwave , phone , etc all just work ? or whatever the OS X browser is calledFirst you lambaste people for not knowing enough about IE and its alternatives , then you admit to not knowing enough about Safari .
Beautiful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only people still using internet exploder are people who don't care about security.Or perhaps they just don't know about that sort of thing, and expect their computer to just work, just as their TV, fridge, microwave, phone, etc all just work?or whatever the OS X browser is calledFirst you lambaste people for not knowing enough about IE and its alternatives, then you admit to not knowing enough about Safari.
Beautiful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194208</id>
	<title>Google strikes back</title>
	<author>sagematt</author>
	<datestamp>1258911720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which butthurt Google Chrome Frame developer found out about this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which butthurt Google Chrome Frame developer found out about this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which butthurt Google Chrome Frame developer found out about this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30195388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30202568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30198996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30200564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30195182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30196258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30195834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30199190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30195400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30198242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30196600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30198024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30199028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30196150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30197472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30195728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30200542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30196944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30200496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30196580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30197276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30195084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1419255_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30197396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1419255.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1419255.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30195728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30196580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30200564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30196258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30195834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30195400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30200542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30199190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30195084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1419255.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30202568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30195388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1419255.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1419255.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30199028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30196600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1419255.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30200496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1419255.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30195182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1419255.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1419255.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30198242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30198024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1419255.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1419255.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1419255.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1419255.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194262
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30197276
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30198996
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30197396
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194604
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30196150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30196944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30197472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1419255.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30193840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1419255.30194634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
