<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_29_1435259</id>
	<title>Adobe Flash To Be Top Hacker Target In 2010</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1262107200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Adobe Systems' Flash and Acrobat Reader products will become <a href="http://mcafee.com/us/local\_content/white\_papers/7985rpt\_labs\_threat\_predict\_1209\_v2.pdf">the preferred targets for criminal hackers</a> (PDF) in 2010, surpassing Microsoft Office applications, a security vendor predicted this week. 'Cybercriminals have long picked on Microsoft products due to their popularity. In 2010, we anticipate Adobe software, especially Acrobat Reader and Flash, <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/122909-adobe-will-be-top-target.html">will take the top spot</a>,' security vendor McAfee said in its '2010 Threat Predictions' report.  'We have absolutely seen an increase in the number of attacks, around Reader in particular and also Flash Player to some extent,' CTO Kevin Lynch told reporters at the Adobe Max conference in October. 'We're working to decrease the amount of time between when we know about a problem and when we release a fix. That used to be a couple of months; now it's within two weeks for critical issues.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Adobe Systems ' Flash and Acrobat Reader products will become the preferred targets for criminal hackers ( PDF ) in 2010 , surpassing Microsoft Office applications , a security vendor predicted this week .
'Cybercriminals have long picked on Microsoft products due to their popularity .
In 2010 , we anticipate Adobe software , especially Acrobat Reader and Flash , will take the top spot, ' security vendor McAfee said in its '2010 Threat Predictions ' report .
'We have absolutely seen an increase in the number of attacks , around Reader in particular and also Flash Player to some extent, ' CTO Kevin Lynch told reporters at the Adobe Max conference in October .
'We 're working to decrease the amount of time between when we know about a problem and when we release a fix .
That used to be a couple of months ; now it 's within two weeks for critical issues .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Adobe Systems' Flash and Acrobat Reader products will become the preferred targets for criminal hackers (PDF) in 2010, surpassing Microsoft Office applications, a security vendor predicted this week.
'Cybercriminals have long picked on Microsoft products due to their popularity.
In 2010, we anticipate Adobe software, especially Acrobat Reader and Flash, will take the top spot,' security vendor McAfee said in its '2010 Threat Predictions' report.
'We have absolutely seen an increase in the number of attacks, around Reader in particular and also Flash Player to some extent,' CTO Kevin Lynch told reporters at the Adobe Max conference in October.
'We're working to decrease the amount of time between when we know about a problem and when we release a fix.
That used to be a couple of months; now it's within two weeks for critical issues.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583960</id>
	<title>Re:This is about finding a common infection point</title>
	<author>El Capitaine</author>
	<datestamp>1262112420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, what will happen is that the Macs, Linux, smartphones, etc. will still be praised as incredibly secure, and it will just be Adobe's fault.  Nobody likes to take the blame or admit that their favorite platform isn't what they said it was, but everyone loves to insult Flash.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , what will happen is that the Macs , Linux , smartphones , etc .
will still be praised as incredibly secure , and it will just be Adobe 's fault .
Nobody likes to take the blame or admit that their favorite platform is n't what they said it was , but everyone loves to insult Flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, what will happen is that the Macs, Linux, smartphones, etc.
will still be praised as incredibly secure, and it will just be Adobe's fault.
Nobody likes to take the blame or admit that their favorite platform isn't what they said it was, but everyone loves to insult Flash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585764</id>
	<title>Re:Yuh huh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262077500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You see, somehow this isn't an issue on other OSes.  Why?  Because there's an unified update mechanism that can be used by any program.</p><p>In addition, most of available software is packaged in a big repository with security support, and if you use third-party repositories, they can use the mechanism as well.  On Windows, though, every program has to implement its own update -- some do, like Firefox, Thunderbird, WinAmp or Java, but the vast majority lacks it.  And even those few with an auto-update function have it in an inconsistent matter, requiring user intervention as well.</p><p>So your boss was right, Bill Gates' mother does have some guilt for the intrusion into your server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You see , somehow this is n't an issue on other OSes .
Why ? Because there 's an unified update mechanism that can be used by any program.In addition , most of available software is packaged in a big repository with security support , and if you use third-party repositories , they can use the mechanism as well .
On Windows , though , every program has to implement its own update -- some do , like Firefox , Thunderbird , WinAmp or Java , but the vast majority lacks it .
And even those few with an auto-update function have it in an inconsistent matter , requiring user intervention as well.So your boss was right , Bill Gates ' mother does have some guilt for the intrusion into your server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You see, somehow this isn't an issue on other OSes.
Why?  Because there's an unified update mechanism that can be used by any program.In addition, most of available software is packaged in a big repository with security support, and if you use third-party repositories, they can use the mechanism as well.
On Windows, though, every program has to implement its own update -- some do, like Firefox, Thunderbird, WinAmp or Java, but the vast majority lacks it.
And even those few with an auto-update function have it in an inconsistent matter, requiring user intervention as well.So your boss was right, Bill Gates' mother does have some guilt for the intrusion into your server.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585358</id>
	<title>What's wrong with this idea?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262119020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's say you have two computers. One is meant for everything but web surfing (except e-mail, bank sites, anything "sensitive"), and the other is meant solely for web surfing.</p><p>The first one can have flash "un"installed. The second one would have flash installed, and would be a "play" computer, where you surf, do web research, etc., without worrying about trashing your machine because a simple reinstall will cure everything without data loss on said machine. It could even be frozen, if that is your thing.</p><p>Tell me, what would be wrong with this idea?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say you have two computers .
One is meant for everything but web surfing ( except e-mail , bank sites , anything " sensitive " ) , and the other is meant solely for web surfing.The first one can have flash " un " installed .
The second one would have flash installed , and would be a " play " computer , where you surf , do web research , etc. , without worrying about trashing your machine because a simple reinstall will cure everything without data loss on said machine .
It could even be frozen , if that is your thing.Tell me , what would be wrong with this idea ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say you have two computers.
One is meant for everything but web surfing (except e-mail, bank sites, anything "sensitive"), and the other is meant solely for web surfing.The first one can have flash "un"installed.
The second one would have flash installed, and would be a "play" computer, where you surf, do web research, etc., without worrying about trashing your machine because a simple reinstall will cure everything without data loss on said machine.
It could even be frozen, if that is your thing.Tell me, what would be wrong with this idea?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583928</id>
	<title>How are Linux users affected by this?</title>
	<author>Nutria</author>
	<datestamp>1262112300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are there Flash-based keyloggers or bots?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there Flash-based keyloggers or bots ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there Flash-based keyloggers or bots?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30586002</id>
	<title>Re:WTF</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1262078520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, "nightmare" is hyperbole. Maybe it isn't as bad as Chicken Little says.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , " nightmare " is hyperbole .
Maybe it is n't as bad as Chicken Little says .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, "nightmare" is hyperbole.
Maybe it isn't as bad as Chicken Little says.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584112</id>
	<title>Re:This is about finding a common infection point</title>
	<author>oahazmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1262113140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What happens to all the folks (us?) who have been gloating over the security of our Macs, Linux, smartphones etc. when these apps get broken? Time to eat crow?</p></div><p>
Yes.
<br> <br>
The moment you believe securing your system is not an issue, that's exactly when it <i>becomes</i> an issue.
<br> <br>
As Windows and Mac user, I don't trust either of my systems to be any more secure out-of-the-box than I can throw them. You don't get to ignore any responsibility for your system's security and have the privilege of being a link-clicking blind-downloader simply because you picked the "more secure" computer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens to all the folks ( us ?
) who have been gloating over the security of our Macs , Linux , smartphones etc .
when these apps get broken ?
Time to eat crow ?
Yes . The moment you believe securing your system is not an issue , that 's exactly when it becomes an issue .
As Windows and Mac user , I do n't trust either of my systems to be any more secure out-of-the-box than I can throw them .
You do n't get to ignore any responsibility for your system 's security and have the privilege of being a link-clicking blind-downloader simply because you picked the " more secure " computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens to all the folks (us?
) who have been gloating over the security of our Macs, Linux, smartphones etc.
when these apps get broken?
Time to eat crow?
Yes.
 
The moment you believe securing your system is not an issue, that's exactly when it becomes an issue.
As Windows and Mac user, I don't trust either of my systems to be any more secure out-of-the-box than I can throw them.
You don't get to ignore any responsibility for your system's security and have the privilege of being a link-clicking blind-downloader simply because you picked the "more secure" computer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585138</id>
	<title>More ironic</title>
	<author>Nalez</author>
	<datestamp>1262118000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is even MORE ironic is the whitepapers page <a href="http://mcafee.com/us/threat\_center/white\_paper.html" title="mcafee.com" rel="nofollow">http://mcafee.com/us/threat\_center/white\_paper.html</a> [mcafee.com] that links to the article saying that adobe reader is going to be a upcoming threat in 2010, ALSO links to adobe reader!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is even MORE ironic is the whitepapers page http : //mcafee.com/us/threat \ _center/white \ _paper.html [ mcafee.com ] that links to the article saying that adobe reader is going to be a upcoming threat in 2010 , ALSO links to adobe reader !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is even MORE ironic is the whitepapers page http://mcafee.com/us/threat\_center/white\_paper.html [mcafee.com] that links to the article saying that adobe reader is going to be a upcoming threat in 2010, ALSO links to adobe reader!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584248</id>
	<title>Re:There is already a solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262113800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flash games are the only things you can't easily reproduce in javascript.  I know my siblings (ranging from the age of 4-15) are the source of most of my parents computer woes.  They play many flash based games, and I assume that is the source of a lot of their issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash games are the only things you ca n't easily reproduce in javascript .
I know my siblings ( ranging from the age of 4-15 ) are the source of most of my parents computer woes .
They play many flash based games , and I assume that is the source of a lot of their issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash games are the only things you can't easily reproduce in javascript.
I know my siblings (ranging from the age of 4-15) are the source of most of my parents computer woes.
They play many flash based games, and I assume that is the source of a lot of their issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583956</id>
	<title>Re:Quick fixes won't be enough.</title>
	<author>psydeshow</author>
	<datestamp>1262112420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People often just don't update Flash much.</p></div><p>Except that Flash can be made to auto-update since around version 8.</p><p>So no, people don't update Flash. It updates itself!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People often just do n't update Flash much.Except that Flash can be made to auto-update since around version 8.So no , people do n't update Flash .
It updates itself !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People often just don't update Flash much.Except that Flash can be made to auto-update since around version 8.So no, people don't update Flash.
It updates itself!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30586356</id>
	<title>Re:Yuh huh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262080380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Applications?  What about OSes that don't stop the applications from doing stupid things?  Like running past the end of a buffer and shitting all over your executable code?  The application should crash because the OS said fuck no you can't do that.  The application should check it's bounds to prevent the application from crashing not to do the OS's job to prevent the entire system from being owned.  If you don't think it's the OS's job to manage memory your standards are a bit low.</p><p>Seriously click ===&gt; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NX\_bit" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">NX\_bit</a> [wikipedia.org] and find out what Windows has been fucking up for ages.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, there are lots of shitty applications but don't exclude the OS from blame.  Microsoft has been blaming 3rd party applications since the DOS era when they actually could have made the case.</p><p>Like I said applications aren't off the hook.  There are plenty of free tools out there to tell you how fucked up and stupid bad you are at coding.  As a developer you should use them until you reach the conceited conclusion that you're better at it than the tools are.  Oh, I'm sorry if your expensive development suite doesn't provide these tools out of the box but did I mention they're free?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Applications ?
What about OSes that do n't stop the applications from doing stupid things ?
Like running past the end of a buffer and shitting all over your executable code ?
The application should crash because the OS said fuck no you ca n't do that .
The application should check it 's bounds to prevent the application from crashing not to do the OS 's job to prevent the entire system from being owned .
If you do n't think it 's the OS 's job to manage memory your standards are a bit low.Seriously click = = = &gt; NX \ _bit [ wikipedia.org ] and find out what Windows has been fucking up for ages.Do n't get me wrong , there are lots of shitty applications but do n't exclude the OS from blame .
Microsoft has been blaming 3rd party applications since the DOS era when they actually could have made the case.Like I said applications are n't off the hook .
There are plenty of free tools out there to tell you how fucked up and stupid bad you are at coding .
As a developer you should use them until you reach the conceited conclusion that you 're better at it than the tools are .
Oh , I 'm sorry if your expensive development suite does n't provide these tools out of the box but did I mention they 're free ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Applications?
What about OSes that don't stop the applications from doing stupid things?
Like running past the end of a buffer and shitting all over your executable code?
The application should crash because the OS said fuck no you can't do that.
The application should check it's bounds to prevent the application from crashing not to do the OS's job to prevent the entire system from being owned.
If you don't think it's the OS's job to manage memory your standards are a bit low.Seriously click ===&gt; NX\_bit [wikipedia.org] and find out what Windows has been fucking up for ages.Don't get me wrong, there are lots of shitty applications but don't exclude the OS from blame.
Microsoft has been blaming 3rd party applications since the DOS era when they actually could have made the case.Like I said applications aren't off the hook.
There are plenty of free tools out there to tell you how fucked up and stupid bad you are at coding.
As a developer you should use them until you reach the conceited conclusion that you're better at it than the tools are.
Oh, I'm sorry if your expensive development suite doesn't provide these tools out of the box but did I mention they're free?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584200</id>
	<title>Re:This is about finding a common infection point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262113560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What happens to all the folks (us?) who have been gloating over the security of our Macs, Linux, smartphones etc. when these apps get broken? Time to eat crow?</p></div></blockquote><p> I would imagine that if Flash etc. became poor enough in terms of security we'd see more attention on projects like <a href="http://www.gnashdev.org/" title="gnashdev.org">Gnash</a> [gnashdev.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens to all the folks ( us ?
) who have been gloating over the security of our Macs , Linux , smartphones etc .
when these apps get broken ?
Time to eat crow ?
I would imagine that if Flash etc .
became poor enough in terms of security we 'd see more attention on projects like Gnash [ gnashdev.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens to all the folks (us?
) who have been gloating over the security of our Macs, Linux, smartphones etc.
when these apps get broken?
Time to eat crow?
I would imagine that if Flash etc.
became poor enough in terms of security we'd see more attention on projects like Gnash [gnashdev.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584012</id>
	<title>New Year Forecasts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262112660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish the media would spend as much time reviewing the forecasts from the previous year as they do reporting what experts think will happen next year.  I predict the big security issue for 2010 will be... annoying.  And profitable for the security industry, even for the expert who said the problem will be something else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish the media would spend as much time reviewing the forecasts from the previous year as they do reporting what experts think will happen next year .
I predict the big security issue for 2010 will be... annoying. And profitable for the security industry , even for the expert who said the problem will be something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish the media would spend as much time reviewing the forecasts from the previous year as they do reporting what experts think will happen next year.
I predict the big security issue for 2010 will be... annoying.  And profitable for the security industry, even for the expert who said the problem will be something else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583868</id>
	<title>Re:I already see this happening</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262111940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This thread is devoted to CmdrTaco's small penis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This thread is devoted to CmdrTaco 's small penis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This thread is devoted to CmdrTaco's small penis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30588446</id>
	<title>Well, my prediction is Windows again</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1262089440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless crime gangs all went to some course learning to code massively multi platform, the "issue" will basically put some<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe file to users computer and run it. It won't be some amazingly universal binary which runs on ARM/x86/PPC/MIPS and dozen of different operating systems.</p><p>I understand your sarcasm and it is really alerting that there are like 10\% of market who believes their platform is something like NSA Terminals we see at movies but Flash exploit isn't the one which the real doomsday for OS X will come. It will be a real, working, specific designed worm/virus/whatever which will actually send itself to others. The next day, newspaper you read won't be on your doorstep as the multi xeon/quark/indesign workstation wasn't running a security solution or firewall since "it is OS X".</p><p>Of course, what does Mac AV companies code, what the hell they really check, what about unknown threats is another issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless crime gangs all went to some course learning to code massively multi platform , the " issue " will basically put some .exe file to users computer and run it .
It wo n't be some amazingly universal binary which runs on ARM/x86/PPC/MIPS and dozen of different operating systems.I understand your sarcasm and it is really alerting that there are like 10 \ % of market who believes their platform is something like NSA Terminals we see at movies but Flash exploit is n't the one which the real doomsday for OS X will come .
It will be a real , working , specific designed worm/virus/whatever which will actually send itself to others .
The next day , newspaper you read wo n't be on your doorstep as the multi xeon/quark/indesign workstation was n't running a security solution or firewall since " it is OS X " .Of course , what does Mac AV companies code , what the hell they really check , what about unknown threats is another issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless crime gangs all went to some course learning to code massively multi platform, the "issue" will basically put some .exe file to users computer and run it.
It won't be some amazingly universal binary which runs on ARM/x86/PPC/MIPS and dozen of different operating systems.I understand your sarcasm and it is really alerting that there are like 10\% of market who believes their platform is something like NSA Terminals we see at movies but Flash exploit isn't the one which the real doomsday for OS X will come.
It will be a real, working, specific designed worm/virus/whatever which will actually send itself to others.
The next day, newspaper you read won't be on your doorstep as the multi xeon/quark/indesign workstation wasn't running a security solution or firewall since "it is OS X".Of course, what does Mac AV companies code, what the hell they really check, what about unknown threats is another issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584098</id>
	<title>selling a product</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1262113020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>McAfee, of course, has a product to sell.
</p><p>
For Adobe Reader, the solution is really easy. Either install something faster and more secure as your browser's PDF plugin, or disable javascript in Adobe Reader. All the security vulnerabilities in AR have been related to javascript, which is a feature that almost nobody wants or needs in pdf files anyway.
</p><p>
I'm skeptical about any risk from flash. Flash apps run in a sandbox. Are they referring to things like malicious facebook apps? That seems like a relatively minor concern to me. Sure, it would be embarrassing to have all your facebook friends get spam from you, but the potential damage seems relatively minor. It can't take over your machine, can't access your banking info, etc. And of course flashblock, which I would never be without in any case, will protect you from running untrusted flash apps on random webpages that you hit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>McAfee , of course , has a product to sell .
For Adobe Reader , the solution is really easy .
Either install something faster and more secure as your browser 's PDF plugin , or disable javascript in Adobe Reader .
All the security vulnerabilities in AR have been related to javascript , which is a feature that almost nobody wants or needs in pdf files anyway .
I 'm skeptical about any risk from flash .
Flash apps run in a sandbox .
Are they referring to things like malicious facebook apps ?
That seems like a relatively minor concern to me .
Sure , it would be embarrassing to have all your facebook friends get spam from you , but the potential damage seems relatively minor .
It ca n't take over your machine , ca n't access your banking info , etc .
And of course flashblock , which I would never be without in any case , will protect you from running untrusted flash apps on random webpages that you hit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>McAfee, of course, has a product to sell.
For Adobe Reader, the solution is really easy.
Either install something faster and more secure as your browser's PDF plugin, or disable javascript in Adobe Reader.
All the security vulnerabilities in AR have been related to javascript, which is a feature that almost nobody wants or needs in pdf files anyway.
I'm skeptical about any risk from flash.
Flash apps run in a sandbox.
Are they referring to things like malicious facebook apps?
That seems like a relatively minor concern to me.
Sure, it would be embarrassing to have all your facebook friends get spam from you, but the potential damage seems relatively minor.
It can't take over your machine, can't access your banking info, etc.
And of course flashblock, which I would never be without in any case, will protect you from running untrusted flash apps on random webpages that you hit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584330</id>
	<title>Ironic...</title>
	<author>PNutts</author>
	<datestamp>1262114220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...that the report identifying Flash and Reader as the top vectors for 2010 is released in PDF format? At the risk of shouting "get off my lawn", what happened to good old plain text? The margins and logos did not add to the content. If you need all that then you probably should't have opened the PDF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...that the report identifying Flash and Reader as the top vectors for 2010 is released in PDF format ?
At the risk of shouting " get off my lawn " , what happened to good old plain text ?
The margins and logos did not add to the content .
If you need all that then you probably should't have opened the PDF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that the report identifying Flash and Reader as the top vectors for 2010 is released in PDF format?
At the risk of shouting "get off my lawn", what happened to good old plain text?
The margins and logos did not add to the content.
If you need all that then you probably should't have opened the PDF.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30588340</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, the irony!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262088900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really ironic is, do you believe the tools of them, the fairly expensive products actually checks swf files heuristically for malicious content or they just do (insert checksum of swf file of that russian gang) checks?</p><p>Does their tool say "hmm, this thing wasn't on startup until user had that mysterious swf file in his browser cache which does mysterious system calls right after loading?" That is the level of heuristics needed if they ship a realtime virus checker in 2009/2010. The scene is \_that\_ bad and it will get uglier especially in XXX land when Adobe Flash Streaming gets picked up by them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ironic is , do you believe the tools of them , the fairly expensive products actually checks swf files heuristically for malicious content or they just do ( insert checksum of swf file of that russian gang ) checks ? Does their tool say " hmm , this thing was n't on startup until user had that mysterious swf file in his browser cache which does mysterious system calls right after loading ?
" That is the level of heuristics needed if they ship a realtime virus checker in 2009/2010 .
The scene is \ _that \ _ bad and it will get uglier especially in XXX land when Adobe Flash Streaming gets picked up by them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really ironic is, do you believe the tools of them, the fairly expensive products actually checks swf files heuristically for malicious content or they just do (insert checksum of swf file of that russian gang) checks?Does their tool say "hmm, this thing wasn't on startup until user had that mysterious swf file in his browser cache which does mysterious system calls right after loading?
" That is the level of heuristics needed if they ship a realtime virus checker in 2009/2010.
The scene is \_that\_ bad and it will get uglier especially in XXX land when Adobe Flash Streaming gets picked up by them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584256</id>
	<title>Re:There is already a solution</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1262113860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is already a solution out there and it is called javascript. 90\% of the things you can do in flash can easily be done using javascript, jquery, or some other javascript framework.</p></div><p>The problem with your statement is you assume the Flash content creators are programmers with enough free time. In reality, many of them have degrees in communications or visual arts or are just programmers who want a quick and easy tool for throwing together some quick video/UI content for the Web. From what I've seen, the decently made tools to create such content are mostly created by Adobe and focused on Flash. Unless a company steps up and creates equivalent tools for HTML5 and javascript and those tools gain a significant market share and momentum and ecosystem, I see Flash remaining dominant, with MS gobbling up a smaller share.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is already a solution out there and it is called javascript .
90 \ % of the things you can do in flash can easily be done using javascript , jquery , or some other javascript framework.The problem with your statement is you assume the Flash content creators are programmers with enough free time .
In reality , many of them have degrees in communications or visual arts or are just programmers who want a quick and easy tool for throwing together some quick video/UI content for the Web .
From what I 've seen , the decently made tools to create such content are mostly created by Adobe and focused on Flash .
Unless a company steps up and creates equivalent tools for HTML5 and javascript and those tools gain a significant market share and momentum and ecosystem , I see Flash remaining dominant , with MS gobbling up a smaller share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is already a solution out there and it is called javascript.
90\% of the things you can do in flash can easily be done using javascript, jquery, or some other javascript framework.The problem with your statement is you assume the Flash content creators are programmers with enough free time.
In reality, many of them have degrees in communications or visual arts or are just programmers who want a quick and easy tool for throwing together some quick video/UI content for the Web.
From what I've seen, the decently made tools to create such content are mostly created by Adobe and focused on Flash.
Unless a company steps up and creates equivalent tools for HTML5 and javascript and those tools gain a significant market share and momentum and ecosystem, I see Flash remaining dominant, with MS gobbling up a smaller share.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583660</id>
	<title>I already see this happening</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1262110980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes when I go to a website, it will have Flash malware which forces me to download unwanted content and then plays it without my consent.</p><p>Damn you Youtube!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes when I go to a website , it will have Flash malware which forces me to download unwanted content and then plays it without my consent.Damn you Youtube ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes when I go to a website, it will have Flash malware which forces me to download unwanted content and then plays it without my consent.Damn you Youtube!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584030</id>
	<title>Re:WTF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262112720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well it was just a document viewer, then someone got the bright idea to add Javascript to it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well it was just a document viewer , then someone got the bright idea to add Javascript to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well it was just a document viewer, then someone got the bright idea to add Javascript to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30587052</id>
	<title>Re:Acrobat and Flash</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1262083860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why should I automatically assume that McAfee's prediction is correct? I thought TFA was pretty weak on justifications.

Personally, I suspect (predict?) that the top security threats in 2010 will be the same ones as in 2009, 2008 and so on i.e. things like slack coding and QA practices, bad design, poorly implemented security policies, end user gullibility etc. No real reason to assume Adobe or MS or Apple are any better or worse than they were last year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should I automatically assume that McAfee 's prediction is correct ?
I thought TFA was pretty weak on justifications .
Personally , I suspect ( predict ?
) that the top security threats in 2010 will be the same ones as in 2009 , 2008 and so on i.e .
things like slack coding and QA practices , bad design , poorly implemented security policies , end user gullibility etc .
No real reason to assume Adobe or MS or Apple are any better or worse than they were last year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should I automatically assume that McAfee's prediction is correct?
I thought TFA was pretty weak on justifications.
Personally, I suspect (predict?
) that the top security threats in 2010 will be the same ones as in 2009, 2008 and so on i.e.
things like slack coding and QA practices, bad design, poorly implemented security policies, end user gullibility etc.
No real reason to assume Adobe or MS or Apple are any better or worse than they were last year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30586554</id>
	<title>Hacker? Nah...</title>
	<author>paxcoder</author>
	<datestamp>1262081220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oooh you mean cracker! Phew, for a second there, I thought you thought they'll develop apps for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oooh you mean cracker !
Phew , for a second there , I thought you thought they 'll develop apps for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oooh you mean cracker!
Phew, for a second there, I thought you thought they'll develop apps for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583778</id>
	<title>Acrobat and Flash</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262111460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Acrobat and Flash vulnerabilities were two of the biggest issues I saw in 2009, even more than Office vulnerabilities.</p><p>For one, Office only seems to hit the enterprise sector, and most enterprise users have at least some security. Office is more likely to be patched by users, and there were fewer vulnerabilities.</p><p>Most users don't have the latest version of Acrobat or Flash. They effect home and enterprise users.</p><p>Even more alarming, it seems that Flash vulnerabilities are one of the biggest weaknesses on Mac and Linux, where security is an after-thought.</p><p>For Windows users, I often recommend they swap Acrobat with a free reader like Sumo or Foxit, which is smaller, faster, and has less vulnerabilities. Sadly, there aren't many GOOD Flash alternatives.</p><p>I really hope HTML 5 phases out the popularity of Flash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Acrobat and Flash vulnerabilities were two of the biggest issues I saw in 2009 , even more than Office vulnerabilities.For one , Office only seems to hit the enterprise sector , and most enterprise users have at least some security .
Office is more likely to be patched by users , and there were fewer vulnerabilities.Most users do n't have the latest version of Acrobat or Flash .
They effect home and enterprise users.Even more alarming , it seems that Flash vulnerabilities are one of the biggest weaknesses on Mac and Linux , where security is an after-thought.For Windows users , I often recommend they swap Acrobat with a free reader like Sumo or Foxit , which is smaller , faster , and has less vulnerabilities .
Sadly , there are n't many GOOD Flash alternatives.I really hope HTML 5 phases out the popularity of Flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Acrobat and Flash vulnerabilities were two of the biggest issues I saw in 2009, even more than Office vulnerabilities.For one, Office only seems to hit the enterprise sector, and most enterprise users have at least some security.
Office is more likely to be patched by users, and there were fewer vulnerabilities.Most users don't have the latest version of Acrobat or Flash.
They effect home and enterprise users.Even more alarming, it seems that Flash vulnerabilities are one of the biggest weaknesses on Mac and Linux, where security is an after-thought.For Windows users, I often recommend they swap Acrobat with a free reader like Sumo or Foxit, which is smaller, faster, and has less vulnerabilities.
Sadly, there aren't many GOOD Flash alternatives.I really hope HTML 5 phases out the popularity of Flash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585094</id>
	<title>get to work on gnash, then</title>
	<author>xiando</author>
	<datestamp>1262117820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>flash expl0its just don't work with the free software Gnash flash player. I even submitted a bug report regarding one of them (yes, actually, it's listed at savannah). If you know C/C++ then please help hacking gnash so we free software users don't miss out on getting robbed by the apparently evil "criminal hackers".</htmltext>
<tokenext>flash expl0its just do n't work with the free software Gnash flash player .
I even submitted a bug report regarding one of them ( yes , actually , it 's listed at savannah ) .
If you know C/C + + then please help hacking gnash so we free software users do n't miss out on getting robbed by the apparently evil " criminal hackers " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>flash expl0its just don't work with the free software Gnash flash player.
I even submitted a bug report regarding one of them (yes, actually, it's listed at savannah).
If you know C/C++ then please help hacking gnash so we free software users don't miss out on getting robbed by the apparently evil "criminal hackers".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30588854</id>
	<title>Re:This is about finding a common infection point</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1262091780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are other issues which make security more than simply a technical problem in commercial closed source products like Flash. Sometimes a bug is not fixed because management feels that "nobody cares" or "users won't notice" and so they order the devs to ignore it to "cut costs" and "save money". At other times, security is thought (by managers) to make the product "user unfriendly" or "too hard" to use. I have heard of projects where the devs were deliberately ordered to remove security features because they weren't "easy to use". This is one area where open source projects like Linux consistently do better (i.e. quality and security) whereas closed source products tend to get the chrome and polish done, but fail the quality and security tests. Some rare companies, Apple being the canonical example, do both well but then it sure doesn't come cheap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are other issues which make security more than simply a technical problem in commercial closed source products like Flash .
Sometimes a bug is not fixed because management feels that " nobody cares " or " users wo n't notice " and so they order the devs to ignore it to " cut costs " and " save money " .
At other times , security is thought ( by managers ) to make the product " user unfriendly " or " too hard " to use .
I have heard of projects where the devs were deliberately ordered to remove security features because they were n't " easy to use " .
This is one area where open source projects like Linux consistently do better ( i.e .
quality and security ) whereas closed source products tend to get the chrome and polish done , but fail the quality and security tests .
Some rare companies , Apple being the canonical example , do both well but then it sure does n't come cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are other issues which make security more than simply a technical problem in commercial closed source products like Flash.
Sometimes a bug is not fixed because management feels that "nobody cares" or "users won't notice" and so they order the devs to ignore it to "cut costs" and "save money".
At other times, security is thought (by managers) to make the product "user unfriendly" or "too hard" to use.
I have heard of projects where the devs were deliberately ordered to remove security features because they weren't "easy to use".
This is one area where open source projects like Linux consistently do better (i.e.
quality and security) whereas closed source products tend to get the chrome and polish done, but fail the quality and security tests.
Some rare companies, Apple being the canonical example, do both well but then it sure doesn't come cheap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30592148</id>
	<title>Re:What are you going to target...</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259846160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In what way is security an "afterthought" on these systems? Both have stronger measures to keep exploits from infecting the core system than Windows7.</p></div><p>Is that really true? Both have inferior ASLR to Windows 7, for example.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Both have excellent patching mechanisms that consumers use regularly.</p></div><p>I don't see any way in which Apple's patching mechanism is superior to Windows'. Also, the way Apple uses it is inadequate; for example, they are very bad about updating OSS components of the OS, and you will find tragically old versions of perl libraries &amp;c.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Furthermore, let's say you are a virus writer, and you take advantage of a Flash exploit. OK, now you have native code running - just which system calls are you going to start making? Linux? Mac? Hardly.</p></div><p>AFAICT this is the only meat in your comment sandwich.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In what way is security an " afterthought " on these systems ?
Both have stronger measures to keep exploits from infecting the core system than Windows7.Is that really true ?
Both have inferior ASLR to Windows 7 , for example.Both have excellent patching mechanisms that consumers use regularly.I do n't see any way in which Apple 's patching mechanism is superior to Windows' .
Also , the way Apple uses it is inadequate ; for example , they are very bad about updating OSS components of the OS , and you will find tragically old versions of perl libraries &amp;c.Furthermore , let 's say you are a virus writer , and you take advantage of a Flash exploit .
OK , now you have native code running - just which system calls are you going to start making ?
Linux ? Mac ?
Hardly.AFAICT this is the only meat in your comment sandwich .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In what way is security an "afterthought" on these systems?
Both have stronger measures to keep exploits from infecting the core system than Windows7.Is that really true?
Both have inferior ASLR to Windows 7, for example.Both have excellent patching mechanisms that consumers use regularly.I don't see any way in which Apple's patching mechanism is superior to Windows'.
Also, the way Apple uses it is inadequate; for example, they are very bad about updating OSS components of the OS, and you will find tragically old versions of perl libraries &amp;c.Furthermore, let's say you are a virus writer, and you take advantage of a Flash exploit.
OK, now you have native code running - just which system calls are you going to start making?
Linux? Mac?
Hardly.AFAICT this is the only meat in your comment sandwich.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583818</id>
	<title>Do the hacks exploit buffer overflow issues?</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1262111640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do the hacks exploit buffer overflow or wilder pointer issues? anyone knows?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do the hacks exploit buffer overflow or wilder pointer issues ?
anyone knows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do the hacks exploit buffer overflow or wilder pointer issues?
anyone knows?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583768</id>
	<title>WTF</title>
	<author>tylersoze</author>
	<datestamp>1262111460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could someone please explain to me why I have to be worried about $#! document viewer compromising my system? WTF Adobe!? Glad I don't have to use it to read PDF's anymore. Thank you OS X for builtin support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could someone please explain to me why I have to be worried about $ # !
document viewer compromising my system ?
WTF Adobe ! ?
Glad I do n't have to use it to read PDF 's anymore .
Thank you OS X for builtin support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could someone please explain to me why I have to be worried about $#!
document viewer compromising my system?
WTF Adobe!?
Glad I don't have to use it to read PDF's anymore.
Thank you OS X for builtin support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585024</id>
	<title>In other news....</title>
	<author>awyeah</author>
	<datestamp>1262117460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... 2010 is predicted to be the year of the Linux desktop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... 2010 is predicted to be the year of the Linux desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... 2010 is predicted to be the year of the Linux desktop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584316</id>
	<title>the REAL preferred target</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262114160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why don't they design the underlying Operating System to be immune to bugs in the applications. Or at least mitigate the effects and fail safely. Why about applications deliberately designed to exploit some defect in the Operating System to give crooks access to your online banking information. Who is legally responsible if my online bank account gets hacked ?<br> <br>

"<i>'Cybercriminals have long picked on Microsoft products due to their popularity</i>"<br> <br>

Really, I thought it was to do with the defective nature of the underlying Operating System, the one that was never designed with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft\_windows#Security" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Internet security in mind</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they design the underlying Operating System to be immune to bugs in the applications .
Or at least mitigate the effects and fail safely .
Why about applications deliberately designed to exploit some defect in the Operating System to give crooks access to your online banking information .
Who is legally responsible if my online bank account gets hacked ?
" 'Cybercriminals have long picked on Microsoft products due to their popularity " Really , I thought it was to do with the defective nature of the underlying Operating System , the one that was never designed with Internet security in mind [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they design the underlying Operating System to be immune to bugs in the applications.
Or at least mitigate the effects and fail safely.
Why about applications deliberately designed to exploit some defect in the Operating System to give crooks access to your online banking information.
Who is legally responsible if my online bank account gets hacked ?
"'Cybercriminals have long picked on Microsoft products due to their popularity" 

Really, I thought it was to do with the defective nature of the underlying Operating System, the one that was never designed with Internet security in mind [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585978</id>
	<title>Re:This is about finding a common infection point</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1262078340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They keep saying it, but it hasn't happened. How popular does my Mac OS have to get before I see real threat? How popular do smart phones have to become before a real threat? Or, perhaps the best way to infect the most machines is to attack the easiest to exploit, not the most prevalent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They keep saying it , but it has n't happened .
How popular does my Mac OS have to get before I see real threat ?
How popular do smart phones have to become before a real threat ?
Or , perhaps the best way to infect the most machines is to attack the easiest to exploit , not the most prevalent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They keep saying it, but it hasn't happened.
How popular does my Mac OS have to get before I see real threat?
How popular do smart phones have to become before a real threat?
Or, perhaps the best way to infect the most machines is to attack the easiest to exploit, not the most prevalent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30587402</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with million hour video downgrades</title>
	<author>mswhippingboy</author>
	<datestamp>1262085000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would think enough viewers switching to HTML5 sites because they get tired of reinstalling Windows due to viruses clobbering their machines might be just the drug to convince them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would think enough viewers switching to HTML5 sites because they get tired of reinstalling Windows due to viruses clobbering their machines might be just the drug to convince them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would think enough viewers switching to HTML5 sites because they get tired of reinstalling Windows due to viruses clobbering their machines might be just the drug to convince them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583948</id>
	<title>Oh, the irony!</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1262112360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"We predict that Acrobat Reader will be the top hacker target in 2010, and that is why we are distributing our report in a format that can only be viewed by using Acrobat Reader!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We predict that Acrobat Reader will be the top hacker target in 2010 , and that is why we are distributing our report in a format that can only be viewed by using Acrobat Reader !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We predict that Acrobat Reader will be the top hacker target in 2010, and that is why we are distributing our report in a format that can only be viewed by using Acrobat Reader!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30586054</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with million hour video downgrades</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262078700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then they can use the &lt;video&gt; tag with the files they do have and include a Flash player fallback for those who can't play those files using HTML5. See <a href="http://camendesign.com/code/video\_for\_everybody" title="camendesign.com" rel="nofollow">Video for Everybody</a> [camendesign.com] for an example of using &lt;video&gt; with fallbacks. Of course, that has the problem that it involves two encodes, but you could just as easily do just the H.264 one (which you would already be doing for the Flash player anyway) and ignore browsers which only support Theora for &lt;video&gt; in order to push universal support of H.264 in HTML5. HTML5 is defined by the browser writers whose features are influenced by what their users want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then they can use the tag with the files they do have and include a Flash player fallback for those who ca n't play those files using HTML5 .
See Video for Everybody [ camendesign.com ] for an example of using with fallbacks .
Of course , that has the problem that it involves two encodes , but you could just as easily do just the H.264 one ( which you would already be doing for the Flash player anyway ) and ignore browsers which only support Theora for in order to push universal support of H.264 in HTML5 .
HTML5 is defined by the browser writers whose features are influenced by what their users want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then they can use the  tag with the files they do have and include a Flash player fallback for those who can't play those files using HTML5.
See Video for Everybody [camendesign.com] for an example of using  with fallbacks.
Of course, that has the problem that it involves two encodes, but you could just as easily do just the H.264 one (which you would already be doing for the Flash player anyway) and ignore browsers which only support Theora for  in order to push universal support of H.264 in HTML5.
HTML5 is defined by the browser writers whose features are influenced by what their users want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584436</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, the irony!</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1262114700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"We predict that Acrobat Reader will be the top hacker target in 2010, and that is why we are distributing our report in a format that can only be viewed by using Acrobat Reader!"</p></div><p>Fortunately this vendor (who conveniently sells security products) allowed us to view their press release on Slashdot using HTML.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We predict that Acrobat Reader will be the top hacker target in 2010 , and that is why we are distributing our report in a format that can only be viewed by using Acrobat Reader !
" Fortunately this vendor ( who conveniently sells security products ) allowed us to view their press release on Slashdot using HTML .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We predict that Acrobat Reader will be the top hacker target in 2010, and that is why we are distributing our report in a format that can only be viewed by using Acrobat Reader!
"Fortunately this vendor (who conveniently sells security products) allowed us to view their press release on Slashdot using HTML.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584150</id>
	<title>Preferred way to update Flash?</title>
	<author>Exp315</author>
	<datestamp>1262113320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So how do we keep Flash updated, assuming that Adobe tries to keep it patched? Is there a better way than going to Adobe's website and downloading a new version and installing it manually?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So how do we keep Flash updated , assuming that Adobe tries to keep it patched ?
Is there a better way than going to Adobe 's website and downloading a new version and installing it manually ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how do we keep Flash updated, assuming that Adobe tries to keep it patched?
Is there a better way than going to Adobe's website and downloading a new version and installing it manually?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584790</id>
	<title>Re:I already see this happening</title>
	<author>the\_hellspawn</author>
	<datestamp>1262116260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Youtube my butt! Your looking at PoRN! I know I get it too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:{p</htmltext>
<tokenext>Youtube my butt !
Your looking at PoRN !
I know I get it too : { p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Youtube my butt!
Your looking at PoRN!
I know I get it too :{p</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584066</id>
	<title>Re:WTF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262112900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm much more of a hardware (chip) guy than I'll ever be a software guy. I'd like to ask (honestly), how can Flash remain such a security nightmare? After all this time, all of the preceding versions of flash, how can vulnerabilities continue to be found in light of more scrutiny by the developers (code audits, bounds checkers, etc.)? I realize no complex piece of software is bug-free, but Flash (and of course, Acrobat Reader) have continuous vulnerability discoveries... must it be so forevermore?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm much more of a hardware ( chip ) guy than I 'll ever be a software guy .
I 'd like to ask ( honestly ) , how can Flash remain such a security nightmare ?
After all this time , all of the preceding versions of flash , how can vulnerabilities continue to be found in light of more scrutiny by the developers ( code audits , bounds checkers , etc. ) ?
I realize no complex piece of software is bug-free , but Flash ( and of course , Acrobat Reader ) have continuous vulnerability discoveries... must it be so forevermore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm much more of a hardware (chip) guy than I'll ever be a software guy.
I'd like to ask (honestly), how can Flash remain such a security nightmare?
After all this time, all of the preceding versions of flash, how can vulnerabilities continue to be found in light of more scrutiny by the developers (code audits, bounds checkers, etc.)?
I realize no complex piece of software is bug-free, but Flash (and of course, Acrobat Reader) have continuous vulnerability discoveries... must it be so forevermore?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30586176</id>
	<title>Re:Yuh huh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262079420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let me guess, Microsoft are just ready to offer the solution in the form of Silverlight, right?</p></div><p>Leave it to Slashdot commenters to be able to make a story about the abundance of Adobe Flash vulnerabilities into something that somehow is Microsofts fault. Impressive. If I understand you correctly, Microsofts fault here in your mind is that this has to be a planted story? Yay.. because, I mean, who have ever heard of Flash vulnerabilities?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me guess , Microsoft are just ready to offer the solution in the form of Silverlight , right ? Leave it to Slashdot commenters to be able to make a story about the abundance of Adobe Flash vulnerabilities into something that somehow is Microsofts fault .
Impressive. If I understand you correctly , Microsofts fault here in your mind is that this has to be a planted story ?
Yay.. because , I mean , who have ever heard of Flash vulnerabilities ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me guess, Microsoft are just ready to offer the solution in the form of Silverlight, right?Leave it to Slashdot commenters to be able to make a story about the abundance of Adobe Flash vulnerabilities into something that somehow is Microsofts fault.
Impressive. If I understand you correctly, Microsofts fault here in your mind is that this has to be a planted story?
Yay.. because, I mean, who have ever heard of Flash vulnerabilities?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30596072</id>
	<title>the funny thing is</title>
	<author>vuffi\_raa</author>
	<datestamp>1259864220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>both of the security holes in flash and acrobat aren't holes in the adobe products themselves, they are both fairly secure, the problem is that both allow you to run code through them, with flash you can socket just about anything into it and the big hole in acrobat is running javascript through it- really adobe ought to do what macromedia did when they had flash and only allow code to run that modifies local files through a standalone projector file and not through a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.swf file</htmltext>
<tokenext>both of the security holes in flash and acrobat are n't holes in the adobe products themselves , they are both fairly secure , the problem is that both allow you to run code through them , with flash you can socket just about anything into it and the big hole in acrobat is running javascript through it- really adobe ought to do what macromedia did when they had flash and only allow code to run that modifies local files through a standalone projector file and not through a .swf file</tokentext>
<sentencetext>both of the security holes in flash and acrobat aren't holes in the adobe products themselves, they are both fairly secure, the problem is that both allow you to run code through them, with flash you can socket just about anything into it and the big hole in acrobat is running javascript through it- really adobe ought to do what macromedia did when they had flash and only allow code to run that modifies local files through a standalone projector file and not through a .swf file</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30586152</id>
	<title>Re:WTF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262079180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's no Adobe software in Preview. It's Apple's own PDF decoder. In fact, Quartz is based on postscript, so PDF is just a sub-set of the whole thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no Adobe software in Preview .
It 's Apple 's own PDF decoder .
In fact , Quartz is based on postscript , so PDF is just a sub-set of the whole thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no Adobe software in Preview.
It's Apple's own PDF decoder.
In fact, Quartz is based on postscript, so PDF is just a sub-set of the whole thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583952</id>
	<title>Oh the irony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262112420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>McAfee reports that PDF attacks are going to be tops in the upcoming year by releasing reports in PDF form. Maybe they're trying to collect stats on who is vulnerable...</htmltext>
<tokenext>McAfee reports that PDF attacks are going to be tops in the upcoming year by releasing reports in PDF form .
Maybe they 're trying to collect stats on who is vulnerable.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>McAfee reports that PDF attacks are going to be tops in the upcoming year by releasing reports in PDF form.
Maybe they're trying to collect stats on who is vulnerable...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584472</id>
	<title>Re:What are you going to target...</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262114820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The users aren't as focused on security because the OS is seen as traditionally secure. I love Linux. I advocate Linux as a safer way to browse the web.</p><p>Flash exploits on a web site are going to target Windows, as opposed to the small Linux market.</p><p>However, Flash exploits do exist.</p><p>My original point is that this is an odd prediction saying that Flash will become an issue in 2010, when I already think it was the biggest issue in 2009.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The users are n't as focused on security because the OS is seen as traditionally secure .
I love Linux .
I advocate Linux as a safer way to browse the web.Flash exploits on a web site are going to target Windows , as opposed to the small Linux market.However , Flash exploits do exist.My original point is that this is an odd prediction saying that Flash will become an issue in 2010 , when I already think it was the biggest issue in 2009 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The users aren't as focused on security because the OS is seen as traditionally secure.
I love Linux.
I advocate Linux as a safer way to browse the web.Flash exploits on a web site are going to target Windows, as opposed to the small Linux market.However, Flash exploits do exist.My original point is that this is an odd prediction saying that Flash will become an issue in 2010, when I already think it was the biggest issue in 2009.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583668</id>
	<title>Yuh huh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262111040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let me guess, Microsoft are just ready to offer the solution in the form of Silverlight, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me guess , Microsoft are just ready to offer the solution in the form of Silverlight , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me guess, Microsoft are just ready to offer the solution in the form of Silverlight, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584172</id>
	<title>Re:Acrobat and Flash</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262113440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what are these flash exploits capable of doing on a Linux box?  Haven't heard any instances of this happening to any of my Linux using friends yet.  Just FUD?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what are these flash exploits capable of doing on a Linux box ?
Have n't heard any instances of this happening to any of my Linux using friends yet .
Just FUD ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what are these flash exploits capable of doing on a Linux box?
Haven't heard any instances of this happening to any of my Linux using friends yet.
Just FUD?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583946</id>
	<title>And the link is a pdf?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262112360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not clicking on that one!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not clicking on that one !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not clicking on that one!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584462</id>
	<title>Re:This is about finding a common infection point</title>
	<author>Paradigm\_Complex</author>
	<datestamp>1262114760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What happens to all the folks (us?) who have been gloating over the security of our Macs, Linux, smartphones etc. when these apps get broken? Time to eat crow?</p></div><p>I can't speak for Macs or smartphones (who gloats over the security of smartphones?  Things like the amount of iphone jailbreaking going on or the Tmobile sidekick crash make it pretty clear smartphones have issues...), but Linux is still more secure the Windows in this respect.  There's numerous ways to isolate the damage that could be done from a hole in flash.  MAC like SELinux or AppArmor are perfect for this, and Windows still doesn't have a competent MAC implementation (MIC is insufficient).  There's ways to sandbox firefox without MAC, too, such as setting everything up to sudo to another user every time firefox is called.  There's a LOT of ways to deal with this.<br> <br>

Now, all of these take some work on the user's part.  Stupid/lazy Windows users can be pwned just as badly as stupid/lazy Linux people.  But it's not as though a competent individual is just as badly off on both platforms... Linux has solutions for dealing with untrusted things like flash where Windows does not.  If you actually and actively care about security, you can continue to gloat about Linux's superiority in this respect.  If you're too lazy to take security seriously, you can be pwned on both counts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens to all the folks ( us ?
) who have been gloating over the security of our Macs , Linux , smartphones etc .
when these apps get broken ?
Time to eat crow ? I ca n't speak for Macs or smartphones ( who gloats over the security of smartphones ?
Things like the amount of iphone jailbreaking going on or the Tmobile sidekick crash make it pretty clear smartphones have issues... ) , but Linux is still more secure the Windows in this respect .
There 's numerous ways to isolate the damage that could be done from a hole in flash .
MAC like SELinux or AppArmor are perfect for this , and Windows still does n't have a competent MAC implementation ( MIC is insufficient ) .
There 's ways to sandbox firefox without MAC , too , such as setting everything up to sudo to another user every time firefox is called .
There 's a LOT of ways to deal with this .
Now , all of these take some work on the user 's part .
Stupid/lazy Windows users can be pwned just as badly as stupid/lazy Linux people .
But it 's not as though a competent individual is just as badly off on both platforms... Linux has solutions for dealing with untrusted things like flash where Windows does not .
If you actually and actively care about security , you can continue to gloat about Linux 's superiority in this respect .
If you 're too lazy to take security seriously , you can be pwned on both counts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens to all the folks (us?
) who have been gloating over the security of our Macs, Linux, smartphones etc.
when these apps get broken?
Time to eat crow?I can't speak for Macs or smartphones (who gloats over the security of smartphones?
Things like the amount of iphone jailbreaking going on or the Tmobile sidekick crash make it pretty clear smartphones have issues...), but Linux is still more secure the Windows in this respect.
There's numerous ways to isolate the damage that could be done from a hole in flash.
MAC like SELinux or AppArmor are perfect for this, and Windows still doesn't have a competent MAC implementation (MIC is insufficient).
There's ways to sandbox firefox without MAC, too, such as setting everything up to sudo to another user every time firefox is called.
There's a LOT of ways to deal with this.
Now, all of these take some work on the user's part.
Stupid/lazy Windows users can be pwned just as badly as stupid/lazy Linux people.
But it's not as though a competent individual is just as badly off on both platforms... Linux has solutions for dealing with untrusted things like flash where Windows does not.
If you actually and actively care about security, you can continue to gloat about Linux's superiority in this respect.
If you're too lazy to take security seriously, you can be pwned on both counts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30586696</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with million hour video downgrades</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262082000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, nobody cares if H.264 is &ldquo;protected by anything&rdquo;. We all have pulled stuff off of bittorrent, loaded some cracks, or had someone do that for us. I don&rsquo;t remember seeing <em>any</em> computer without &ldquo;illegal&rdquo; software in the last 10 years. Even in companies!</p><p>Like with GIF.</p><p>The joke is, that YouTube already uses H.264. Someone at Google should offer a Firefox extension that simply implements H.264 for the video tag.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , nobody cares if H.264 is    protected by anything    .
We all have pulled stuff off of bittorrent , loaded some cracks , or had someone do that for us .
I don    t remember seeing any computer without    illegal    software in the last 10 years .
Even in companies ! Like with GIF.The joke is , that YouTube already uses H.264 .
Someone at Google should offer a Firefox extension that simply implements H.264 for the video tag .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, nobody cares if H.264 is “protected by anything”.
We all have pulled stuff off of bittorrent, loaded some cracks, or had someone do that for us.
I don’t remember seeing any computer without “illegal” software in the last 10 years.
Even in companies!Like with GIF.The joke is, that YouTube already uses H.264.
Someone at Google should offer a Firefox extension that simply implements H.264 for the video tag.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584088</id>
	<title>Re:WTF</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1262113020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm with you on built-in Mac OS X support. It can "print" PDF files and read them as easily as PNG or JPEG files. I hope Apple never adds support for scripting in their PDF decoder.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm with you on built-in Mac OS X support .
It can " print " PDF files and read them as easily as PNG or JPEG files .
I hope Apple never adds support for scripting in their PDF decoder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm with you on built-in Mac OS X support.
It can "print" PDF files and read them as easily as PNG or JPEG files.
I hope Apple never adds support for scripting in their PDF decoder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584050</id>
	<title>There is already a solution</title>
	<author>jrozzi</author>
	<datestamp>1262112840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Developers can stop using flash and end-users should uninstall it. There is already a solution out there and it is called javascript. 90\% of the things you can do in flash can easily be done using javascript, jquery, or some other javascript framework. For the remaining 10\%, HTML 5 will be able to handle most of it (canvas tag, videos, better form support, etc), and the remainder of things that javascript/html can't do that flash can do (if there is anything), is not even worth implementing in a website.

Since javascript and HTML is all open and much easier to work with, I foresee flash and silverlight on the decline. This especially holds true when HTML 5 is fully supported in most people's browsers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Developers can stop using flash and end-users should uninstall it .
There is already a solution out there and it is called javascript .
90 \ % of the things you can do in flash can easily be done using javascript , jquery , or some other javascript framework .
For the remaining 10 \ % , HTML 5 will be able to handle most of it ( canvas tag , videos , better form support , etc ) , and the remainder of things that javascript/html ca n't do that flash can do ( if there is anything ) , is not even worth implementing in a website .
Since javascript and HTML is all open and much easier to work with , I foresee flash and silverlight on the decline .
This especially holds true when HTML 5 is fully supported in most people 's browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Developers can stop using flash and end-users should uninstall it.
There is already a solution out there and it is called javascript.
90\% of the things you can do in flash can easily be done using javascript, jquery, or some other javascript framework.
For the remaining 10\%, HTML 5 will be able to handle most of it (canvas tag, videos, better form support, etc), and the remainder of things that javascript/html can't do that flash can do (if there is anything), is not even worth implementing in a website.
Since javascript and HTML is all open and much easier to work with, I foresee flash and silverlight on the decline.
This especially holds true when HTML 5 is fully supported in most people's browsers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583798</id>
	<title>64-bit windows safe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262111520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>64-bit windows isn't a target of flash virus<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>64-bit windows is n't a target of flash virus : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>64-bit windows isn't a target of flash virus :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583738</id>
	<title>This is about finding a common infection point</title>
	<author>fprintf</author>
	<datestamp>1262111340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the recent popularity of Apple products and other internet surfing enabled devices, this is all about infecting the most machines possible. Previously that was easily accomplished by targeting the most popular devices - Windows PCs. But now there are even more targets available and most of them run Adobe Reader and Flash.</p><p>What happens to all the folks (us?) who have been gloating over the security of our Macs, Linux, smartphones etc. when these apps get broken?  Time to eat crow?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the recent popularity of Apple products and other internet surfing enabled devices , this is all about infecting the most machines possible .
Previously that was easily accomplished by targeting the most popular devices - Windows PCs .
But now there are even more targets available and most of them run Adobe Reader and Flash.What happens to all the folks ( us ?
) who have been gloating over the security of our Macs , Linux , smartphones etc .
when these apps get broken ?
Time to eat crow ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the recent popularity of Apple products and other internet surfing enabled devices, this is all about infecting the most machines possible.
Previously that was easily accomplished by targeting the most popular devices - Windows PCs.
But now there are even more targets available and most of them run Adobe Reader and Flash.What happens to all the folks (us?
) who have been gloating over the security of our Macs, Linux, smartphones etc.
when these apps get broken?
Time to eat crow?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583974</id>
	<title>Re:Yuh huh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262112480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft would be foolish to let pass an opportunity to promote its competing products, yeah.  They tend not to be foolish when it comes to such things.
<br> <br>
I don't see what Adobe's problem is with the security vulnerabilities.  Don't trust data from the network, and don't ever use a variable/etc without bounds checking.  How many versions, bugfixes, patches, and revisions does it take to get these two basic things right?  Real question.  I don't understand the difficulty here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft would be foolish to let pass an opportunity to promote its competing products , yeah .
They tend not to be foolish when it comes to such things .
I do n't see what Adobe 's problem is with the security vulnerabilities .
Do n't trust data from the network , and do n't ever use a variable/etc without bounds checking .
How many versions , bugfixes , patches , and revisions does it take to get these two basic things right ?
Real question .
I do n't understand the difficulty here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft would be foolish to let pass an opportunity to promote its competing products, yeah.
They tend not to be foolish when it comes to such things.
I don't see what Adobe's problem is with the security vulnerabilities.
Don't trust data from the network, and don't ever use a variable/etc without bounds checking.
How many versions, bugfixes, patches, and revisions does it take to get these two basic things right?
Real question.
I don't understand the difficulty here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584630</id>
	<title>Good luck with million hour video downgrades</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1262115540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless you drug the IT departments of major media sites to go back to 1990s while H264 exists and H265 is being mentioned, HTML5 can't replace Flash.</p><p>It is the codec, the stupid fanaticism about "open codecs" to a degree of inviting Apple to jump to VP3 while they spent billions for H264 and the damn MP4 is being lite version of their OWN container, Mov.</p><p>For terabyte/petabyte sized media outlets, changing the codec means millions of real World money, not some "everything should be open" dreamer's money. In real World media, you even keep U-Matic players from 1970s maintained since in one occasion, you may need that archive tape from 1970s which haven't been digitized since it is part of your millions of hours archive which may be rarely (once a month) used.</p><p>HTML5 designers should really visit a major TV studio to see how things are really done, why you must do some insanely great progress to convince the people to switch, how TV and Video guys doesn't give a heck to "patent" problem as long as multiple vendors/documented standards/EBU etc. approvals exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you drug the IT departments of major media sites to go back to 1990s while H264 exists and H265 is being mentioned , HTML5 ca n't replace Flash.It is the codec , the stupid fanaticism about " open codecs " to a degree of inviting Apple to jump to VP3 while they spent billions for H264 and the damn MP4 is being lite version of their OWN container , Mov.For terabyte/petabyte sized media outlets , changing the codec means millions of real World money , not some " everything should be open " dreamer 's money .
In real World media , you even keep U-Matic players from 1970s maintained since in one occasion , you may need that archive tape from 1970s which have n't been digitized since it is part of your millions of hours archive which may be rarely ( once a month ) used.HTML5 designers should really visit a major TV studio to see how things are really done , why you must do some insanely great progress to convince the people to switch , how TV and Video guys does n't give a heck to " patent " problem as long as multiple vendors/documented standards/EBU etc .
approvals exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you drug the IT departments of major media sites to go back to 1990s while H264 exists and H265 is being mentioned, HTML5 can't replace Flash.It is the codec, the stupid fanaticism about "open codecs" to a degree of inviting Apple to jump to VP3 while they spent billions for H264 and the damn MP4 is being lite version of their OWN container, Mov.For terabyte/petabyte sized media outlets, changing the codec means millions of real World money, not some "everything should be open" dreamer's money.
In real World media, you even keep U-Matic players from 1970s maintained since in one occasion, you may need that archive tape from 1970s which haven't been digitized since it is part of your millions of hours archive which may be rarely (once a month) used.HTML5 designers should really visit a major TV studio to see how things are really done, why you must do some insanely great progress to convince the people to switch, how TV and Video guys doesn't give a heck to "patent" problem as long as multiple vendors/documented standards/EBU etc.
approvals exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585718</id>
	<title>Re:WTF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262077320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Built in support with baked in flaws! You do realize that Adobe support is a FULL FLEDGED ADOBE INSTALL ON any APPLE PC, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Built in support with baked in flaws !
You do realize that Adobe support is a FULL FLEDGED ADOBE INSTALL ON any APPLE PC , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Built in support with baked in flaws!
You do realize that Adobe support is a FULL FLEDGED ADOBE INSTALL ON any APPLE PC, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584264</id>
	<title>What are you going to target...</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1262113860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Even more alarming, it seems that Flash vulnerabilities are one of the biggest weaknesses on Mac and Linux, where security is an after-thought.</i></p><p>In what way is security an "afterthought" on these systems?  Both have stronger measures to keep exploits from infecting the core system than Windows7.  Both have excellent patching mechanisms that consumers use regularly.</p><p>Furthermore, let's say you are a virus writer, and you take advantage of a Flash exploit.  OK, now you have native code running - just which system calls are you going to start making?  Linux?  Mac?  Hardly.</p><p>Just like in the past, Flash exploits will be something Windows users have to worry about while Linux and Mac users just sit back and shake heads that so many people put up with the problems of an overly large  monoculture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even more alarming , it seems that Flash vulnerabilities are one of the biggest weaknesses on Mac and Linux , where security is an after-thought.In what way is security an " afterthought " on these systems ?
Both have stronger measures to keep exploits from infecting the core system than Windows7 .
Both have excellent patching mechanisms that consumers use regularly.Furthermore , let 's say you are a virus writer , and you take advantage of a Flash exploit .
OK , now you have native code running - just which system calls are you going to start making ?
Linux ? Mac ?
Hardly.Just like in the past , Flash exploits will be something Windows users have to worry about while Linux and Mac users just sit back and shake heads that so many people put up with the problems of an overly large monoculture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even more alarming, it seems that Flash vulnerabilities are one of the biggest weaknesses on Mac and Linux, where security is an after-thought.In what way is security an "afterthought" on these systems?
Both have stronger measures to keep exploits from infecting the core system than Windows7.
Both have excellent patching mechanisms that consumers use regularly.Furthermore, let's say you are a virus writer, and you take advantage of a Flash exploit.
OK, now you have native code running - just which system calls are you going to start making?
Linux?  Mac?
Hardly.Just like in the past, Flash exploits will be something Windows users have to worry about while Linux and Mac users just sit back and shake heads that so many people put up with the problems of an overly large  monoculture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30589864</id>
	<title>Packaging...</title>
	<author>darkpixel2k</author>
	<datestamp>1262100240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They could start by releasing a *&amp;^#@ MSI file for Windows and a deb/tar/rpm for Linux.<br>
<br>
Currently I have to wade through a bunch of retarded forms and sign a corporate distribution agreement and wait a few hours so they will send me a link to an MSI so I can update flash.<br>
<br>
Put an MSI on your home page that I can download in a few clicks and push out via Group Policy.<br>
<br>
With a deb, I can update all the linux systems I manage using cssh, wget to grab the deb, and 'dpkg -i' to install.<br>
<br>
If they're not willing to do that, they aren't being helpful.<br>
<br>
Although they could always release the source and let us take care of the updates for them...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)  But I'm sure they're even more against that then releasing an MSI.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They could start by releasing a * &amp; ^ # @ MSI file for Windows and a deb/tar/rpm for Linux .
Currently I have to wade through a bunch of retarded forms and sign a corporate distribution agreement and wait a few hours so they will send me a link to an MSI so I can update flash .
Put an MSI on your home page that I can download in a few clicks and push out via Group Policy .
With a deb , I can update all the linux systems I manage using cssh , wget to grab the deb , and 'dpkg -i ' to install .
If they 're not willing to do that , they are n't being helpful .
Although they could always release the source and let us take care of the updates for them... ; ) But I 'm sure they 're even more against that then releasing an MSI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could start by releasing a *&amp;^#@ MSI file for Windows and a deb/tar/rpm for Linux.
Currently I have to wade through a bunch of retarded forms and sign a corporate distribution agreement and wait a few hours so they will send me a link to an MSI so I can update flash.
Put an MSI on your home page that I can download in a few clicks and push out via Group Policy.
With a deb, I can update all the linux systems I manage using cssh, wget to grab the deb, and 'dpkg -i' to install.
If they're not willing to do that, they aren't being helpful.
Although they could always release the source and let us take care of the updates for them... ;)  But I'm sure they're even more against that then releasing an MSI.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583764</id>
	<title>isn't Flash content in the cloud?</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1262111400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i expect a fix in 5 minutes. everyone knows that anything delivered from the cloud is highly secure and easy to fix if problems arise</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i expect a fix in 5 minutes .
everyone knows that anything delivered from the cloud is highly secure and easy to fix if problems arise</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i expect a fix in 5 minutes.
everyone knows that anything delivered from the cloud is highly secure and easy to fix if problems arise</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30586706</id>
	<title>Re:This is about finding a common infection point</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1262082060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"What happens to all the folks (us?) who have been gloating over the security of our Macs, Linux, smartphones etc. when these apps get broken? Time to eat crow?"</p></div></blockquote><p>Not until our kernel gets its own web browser too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" What happens to all the folks ( us ?
) who have been gloating over the security of our Macs , Linux , smartphones etc .
when these apps get broken ?
Time to eat crow ?
" Not until our kernel gets its own web browser too ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What happens to all the folks (us?
) who have been gloating over the security of our Macs, Linux, smartphones etc.
when these apps get broken?
Time to eat crow?
"Not until our kernel gets its own web browser too ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583740</id>
	<title>Quick fixes won't be enough.</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1262111340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People often just don't update Flash much. It's a little better for Adobe Reader from what I see; but just a little - automatic updates are treated more like a nuisance to hide, it seems.</p><p>Overall - good riddance. Simple &amp; small PDF readers with scripting disabled are all almost anybody needs anyway. As for Flash - everybody here keeps whitelists of pages already, right? And perhaps those few whitelisted ones will feel the need to enable HTML5 video tag sooner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People often just do n't update Flash much .
It 's a little better for Adobe Reader from what I see ; but just a little - automatic updates are treated more like a nuisance to hide , it seems.Overall - good riddance .
Simple &amp; small PDF readers with scripting disabled are all almost anybody needs anyway .
As for Flash - everybody here keeps whitelists of pages already , right ?
And perhaps those few whitelisted ones will feel the need to enable HTML5 video tag sooner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People often just don't update Flash much.
It's a little better for Adobe Reader from what I see; but just a little - automatic updates are treated more like a nuisance to hide, it seems.Overall - good riddance.
Simple &amp; small PDF readers with scripting disabled are all almost anybody needs anyway.
As for Flash - everybody here keeps whitelists of pages already, right?
And perhaps those few whitelisted ones will feel the need to enable HTML5 video tag sooner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585338</id>
	<title>Re:There is already a solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262118900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google "HTML 5 games".</p><p><a href="http://www.benjoffe.com/code/games/torus/" title="benjoffe.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.benjoffe.com/code/games/torus/</a> [benjoffe.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google " HTML 5 games " .http : //www.benjoffe.com/code/games/torus/ [ benjoffe.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google "HTML 5 games".http://www.benjoffe.com/code/games/torus/ [benjoffe.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30587044</id>
	<title>Re:This is about finding a common infection point</title>
	<author>chrismeidinger</author>
	<datestamp>1262083860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's not accurate. Even if you have a common infection point, the same payload doesn't run on Win, OSX and *NIX.

The interesting bit for attackers is the fact that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.swf and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pdf files traverse both corporate and home security pretty easily. It requires deep inspection to find issues in those files beyond simple pattern matching. So the infection rate - given a constant payload - is higher that with many other attacks that need to be initiated from outside the organization.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not accurate .
Even if you have a common infection point , the same payload does n't run on Win , OSX and * NIX .
The interesting bit for attackers is the fact that .swf and .pdf files traverse both corporate and home security pretty easily .
It requires deep inspection to find issues in those files beyond simple pattern matching .
So the infection rate - given a constant payload - is higher that with many other attacks that need to be initiated from outside the organization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not accurate.
Even if you have a common infection point, the same payload doesn't run on Win, OSX and *NIX.
The interesting bit for attackers is the fact that .swf and .pdf files traverse both corporate and home security pretty easily.
It requires deep inspection to find issues in those files beyond simple pattern matching.
So the infection rate - given a constant payload - is higher that with many other attacks that need to be initiated from outside the organization.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584170</id>
	<title>Re:I already see this happening</title>
	<author>VanessaE</author>
	<datestamp>1262113440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6648" title="mozilla.org">Tubestop</a> [mozilla.org] is your friend (tm).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tubestop [ mozilla.org ] is your friend ( tm ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tubestop [mozilla.org] is your friend (tm).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30587058</id>
	<title>Re:Yuh huh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262083860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>At work we had a Windows Server 2008 hacked. It was killing the whole network sending spam and trying to infect other machines on our AD. Our boss was already blaming Bill Gate's mother<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... On a closer inspection, the problem was discovered. The system was running a quite old version of WebBoard (a system for collaboration, which was developed originally by O'Reilly). The firewall has the port 8080 open to allow users to connect. Some people discovered the open port, found out that WebBoard was running, and took advantage of the vulnerability to upload and run malicious code on the server. Because WebBoard is a service, running as the System account, you can imagine what happened there.</i> <br>
<br>
Which is why smart people don't use IIS for public-facing servers - especially not popular packages which make attractive targets.<br>
<br>
Apache, running as a non-root user combined with SELinux to minimize damage if it does get broken combined with least privilege, is a far better choice - and not because it's "not Microsoft".</htmltext>
<tokenext>At work we had a Windows Server 2008 hacked .
It was killing the whole network sending spam and trying to infect other machines on our AD .
Our boss was already blaming Bill Gate 's mother ... On a closer inspection , the problem was discovered .
The system was running a quite old version of WebBoard ( a system for collaboration , which was developed originally by O'Reilly ) .
The firewall has the port 8080 open to allow users to connect .
Some people discovered the open port , found out that WebBoard was running , and took advantage of the vulnerability to upload and run malicious code on the server .
Because WebBoard is a service , running as the System account , you can imagine what happened there .
Which is why smart people do n't use IIS for public-facing servers - especially not popular packages which make attractive targets .
Apache , running as a non-root user combined with SELinux to minimize damage if it does get broken combined with least privilege , is a far better choice - and not because it 's " not Microsoft " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At work we had a Windows Server 2008 hacked.
It was killing the whole network sending spam and trying to infect other machines on our AD.
Our boss was already blaming Bill Gate's mother ... On a closer inspection, the problem was discovered.
The system was running a quite old version of WebBoard (a system for collaboration, which was developed originally by O'Reilly).
The firewall has the port 8080 open to allow users to connect.
Some people discovered the open port, found out that WebBoard was running, and took advantage of the vulnerability to upload and run malicious code on the server.
Because WebBoard is a service, running as the System account, you can imagine what happened there.
Which is why smart people don't use IIS for public-facing servers - especially not popular packages which make attractive targets.
Apache, running as a non-root user combined with SELinux to minimize damage if it does get broken combined with least privilege, is a far better choice - and not because it's "not Microsoft".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584260</id>
	<title>What Adobe needs is...</title>
	<author>mswhippingboy</author>
	<datestamp>1262113860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul>
<li>Automatic code verification to stop nefarious ECMAScript code. </li><li>The script should run within a "sandbox" so it can't inflict damage on your system. </li><li>All memory should be allocated from within the Flash runtime so buffer overflows can't happen.</li></ul><p>
Oh wait... Java applets already do all this.. maybe we just need to dump flash!
<br> <br>
I'll wait while the Java bashing commences.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Automatic code verification to stop nefarious ECMAScript code .
The script should run within a " sandbox " so it ca n't inflict damage on your system .
All memory should be allocated from within the Flash runtime so buffer overflows ca n't happen .
Oh wait... Java applets already do all this.. maybe we just need to dump flash !
I 'll wait while the Java bashing commences .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Automatic code verification to stop nefarious ECMAScript code.
The script should run within a "sandbox" so it can't inflict damage on your system.
All memory should be allocated from within the Flash runtime so buffer overflows can't happen.
Oh wait... Java applets already do all this.. maybe we just need to dump flash!
I'll wait while the Java bashing commences.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583720</id>
	<title>Centralised Updating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262111280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Enforced centralised updating for Adobe products with GP, without local admin rights is what we need (like WSUS).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Enforced centralised updating for Adobe products with GP , without local admin rights is what we need ( like WSUS ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enforced centralised updating for Adobe products with GP, without local admin rights is what we need (like WSUS).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584282</id>
	<title>If Adobe doesn't do cleanup, God help us</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1262114040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Besides couple of security issues which are only fixed by disabling javascript in Adobe Reader EXISTS today, scheduled to be fixed in 15 days, here are 2 examples of the culture who actually develops/packages the OS X version.</p><p>First, this is what you will see in your system.log, whatever browser you use:<br>[0x0-0x1f01f].com.operasoftware.Opera[157]: Debugger() was called</p><p>This is the current flash, released just weeks ago. This is a packaging issue which nobody than a complete newbie would do. They forgot the damn debugger symbol in final binary they ship to millions. I also heard if you are a unlucky developer who has XCode open at the time when you go to a site featuring Flash, that "call" may actually break your own application's tests or running "from there". Amazingly stupid eh? This has been reported to Adobe by many people, users like me, Developers getting hit, Browser vendors/developers (guess who users contact&amp;blame when they see browser name?) and they keep that debug symbol, even ignoring the latest chance to get rid of it weeks ago.</p><p>Want to see more? Here is a bug reported for ages, years, since early OS X days. Disk permissions broken while installing Flash. This is some amazing thing which even Apple is constantly bugged about and one of the perfectly valid excuses of "permission repairer" people on OS X land. Of course, as Apple really secured the permission repair process meaning hundreds of thousands of files will be validated before "repair", it also means 20 mins of a insanely system loading process even on highest end machine. I actually had access to a opto xeon (8x xeon) machine with 16 GB of RAM and just fired up "repair permissions" just to see if it is effected by CPU/RAM specs. No, still 13 mins.</p><p>No need to paste 10s of lines mentioning very stupidly wrongly set permissions. Note that it is also Apple to blame a little, perhaps Adobe could care if they had a bug report coming from @apple.com having thousands of user feedback attached. If I know Apple enough, they must have reported it to Adobe several times since their bug reporter department even finds shareware vendors from web once they spot that their application causes the issue. So, chances are high that these pathetic idiots also ignores Apple Inc. themselves reporting issues, no matter how trivial they are.</p><p>So, Adobe needs to do debugger symbol, permissions cleanups or they must get rid of the idiots who forgets a debugger symbol in a final product used by millions and can continue living their lives as nothing happened.</p><p>PS: Intego, Symantec... Do you read these stories? MCafee, do you read your own white papers? Is the code which will check the swf files on the fly up and running? Or are you still developing sigs for imaginary threats and impossible to run Word macros? Don't blame people when they call you snake oil seller if it is the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides couple of security issues which are only fixed by disabling javascript in Adobe Reader EXISTS today , scheduled to be fixed in 15 days , here are 2 examples of the culture who actually develops/packages the OS X version.First , this is what you will see in your system.log , whatever browser you use : [ 0x0-0x1f01f ] .com.operasoftware.Opera [ 157 ] : Debugger ( ) was calledThis is the current flash , released just weeks ago .
This is a packaging issue which nobody than a complete newbie would do .
They forgot the damn debugger symbol in final binary they ship to millions .
I also heard if you are a unlucky developer who has XCode open at the time when you go to a site featuring Flash , that " call " may actually break your own application 's tests or running " from there " .
Amazingly stupid eh ?
This has been reported to Adobe by many people , users like me , Developers getting hit , Browser vendors/developers ( guess who users contact&amp;blame when they see browser name ?
) and they keep that debug symbol , even ignoring the latest chance to get rid of it weeks ago.Want to see more ?
Here is a bug reported for ages , years , since early OS X days .
Disk permissions broken while installing Flash .
This is some amazing thing which even Apple is constantly bugged about and one of the perfectly valid excuses of " permission repairer " people on OS X land .
Of course , as Apple really secured the permission repair process meaning hundreds of thousands of files will be validated before " repair " , it also means 20 mins of a insanely system loading process even on highest end machine .
I actually had access to a opto xeon ( 8x xeon ) machine with 16 GB of RAM and just fired up " repair permissions " just to see if it is effected by CPU/RAM specs .
No , still 13 mins.No need to paste 10s of lines mentioning very stupidly wrongly set permissions .
Note that it is also Apple to blame a little , perhaps Adobe could care if they had a bug report coming from @ apple.com having thousands of user feedback attached .
If I know Apple enough , they must have reported it to Adobe several times since their bug reporter department even finds shareware vendors from web once they spot that their application causes the issue .
So , chances are high that these pathetic idiots also ignores Apple Inc. themselves reporting issues , no matter how trivial they are.So , Adobe needs to do debugger symbol , permissions cleanups or they must get rid of the idiots who forgets a debugger symbol in a final product used by millions and can continue living their lives as nothing happened.PS : Intego , Symantec... Do you read these stories ?
MCafee , do you read your own white papers ?
Is the code which will check the swf files on the fly up and running ?
Or are you still developing sigs for imaginary threats and impossible to run Word macros ?
Do n't blame people when they call you snake oil seller if it is the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides couple of security issues which are only fixed by disabling javascript in Adobe Reader EXISTS today, scheduled to be fixed in 15 days, here are 2 examples of the culture who actually develops/packages the OS X version.First, this is what you will see in your system.log, whatever browser you use:[0x0-0x1f01f].com.operasoftware.Opera[157]: Debugger() was calledThis is the current flash, released just weeks ago.
This is a packaging issue which nobody than a complete newbie would do.
They forgot the damn debugger symbol in final binary they ship to millions.
I also heard if you are a unlucky developer who has XCode open at the time when you go to a site featuring Flash, that "call" may actually break your own application's tests or running "from there".
Amazingly stupid eh?
This has been reported to Adobe by many people, users like me, Developers getting hit, Browser vendors/developers (guess who users contact&amp;blame when they see browser name?
) and they keep that debug symbol, even ignoring the latest chance to get rid of it weeks ago.Want to see more?
Here is a bug reported for ages, years, since early OS X days.
Disk permissions broken while installing Flash.
This is some amazing thing which even Apple is constantly bugged about and one of the perfectly valid excuses of "permission repairer" people on OS X land.
Of course, as Apple really secured the permission repair process meaning hundreds of thousands of files will be validated before "repair", it also means 20 mins of a insanely system loading process even on highest end machine.
I actually had access to a opto xeon (8x xeon) machine with 16 GB of RAM and just fired up "repair permissions" just to see if it is effected by CPU/RAM specs.
No, still 13 mins.No need to paste 10s of lines mentioning very stupidly wrongly set permissions.
Note that it is also Apple to blame a little, perhaps Adobe could care if they had a bug report coming from @apple.com having thousands of user feedback attached.
If I know Apple enough, they must have reported it to Adobe several times since their bug reporter department even finds shareware vendors from web once they spot that their application causes the issue.
So, chances are high that these pathetic idiots also ignores Apple Inc. themselves reporting issues, no matter how trivial they are.So, Adobe needs to do debugger symbol, permissions cleanups or they must get rid of the idiots who forgets a debugger symbol in a final product used by millions and can continue living their lives as nothing happened.PS: Intego, Symantec... Do you read these stories?
MCafee, do you read your own white papers?
Is the code which will check the swf files on the fly up and running?
Or are you still developing sigs for imaginary threats and impossible to run Word macros?
Don't blame people when they call you snake oil seller if it is the case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583736</id>
	<title>Re:I already see this happening</title>
	<author>bhamlin</author>
	<datestamp>1262111340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like someone's been a victim of one too many Rickrolls....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like someone 's been a victim of one too many Rickrolls... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like someone's been a victim of one too many Rickrolls....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585938</id>
	<title>Bad headline</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1262078160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Flash to be top hacker target" has a far different connotation than "we anticipate...".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Flash to be top hacker target " has a far different connotation than " we anticipate... " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Flash to be top hacker target" has a far different connotation than "we anticipate...".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585716</id>
	<title>Re:This is about finding a common infection point</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262077320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I don&rsquo;t see that malware running on my custom-compiled system with unsupported 64-bit alpha of Flash anytime soon. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I don    t see that malware running on my custom-compiled system with unsupported 64-bit alpha of Flash anytime soon .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I don’t see that malware running on my custom-compiled system with unsupported 64-bit alpha of Flash anytime soon.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584334</id>
	<title>Re:Yuh huh</title>
	<author>El Lobo</author>
	<datestamp>1262114280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would be the right time, yes. But actually, the problem with todays systems is not as much the OS as the applications that run on it. Almost every self-respecting OS has an Auto-update function that works more or less well. Unless you are a paranoid schizophrenic that update the OS manually (forgetting to do it now and then), the OS is relatively secure. The problem are the applications. Now tell me, how many of us run to download a new Java machine or a new Acrobat reader, or a new Cobian Backup, or a new WinAmp when a vulnerability is discovered on any of those products. Hell you will be lucky if you even get to know that a new vulnerability was found on your faithful uTorrent... So when you get pwned, what's the first thing the user blame? The OS of course... <p>
At work we had a Windows Server 2008 hacked. It was killing the whole network sending spam and trying to infect other machines on our AD. Our boss was already blaming Bill Gate's mother<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... On a closer inspection, the problem was discovered. The system was running a quite old  version of WebBoard (a system for collaboration, which was developed originally by O'Reilly). The firewall has the port 8080 open to allow users to connect. Some people discovered the open port, found out that WebBoard was running, and took advantage of the vulnerability to upload and run malicious code on the server. Because WebBoard is a service, running as the System account, you can imagine what happened there. Did our IT manager know about this vulnerability. Not at all, even if it was fixed on a posterior build.... How many "forgotten" programs, and non-OS related services do people have running in their machines, unpatched and unattended?  Think about this...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be the right time , yes .
But actually , the problem with todays systems is not as much the OS as the applications that run on it .
Almost every self-respecting OS has an Auto-update function that works more or less well .
Unless you are a paranoid schizophrenic that update the OS manually ( forgetting to do it now and then ) , the OS is relatively secure .
The problem are the applications .
Now tell me , how many of us run to download a new Java machine or a new Acrobat reader , or a new Cobian Backup , or a new WinAmp when a vulnerability is discovered on any of those products .
Hell you will be lucky if you even get to know that a new vulnerability was found on your faithful uTorrent... So when you get pwned , what 's the first thing the user blame ?
The OS of course.. . At work we had a Windows Server 2008 hacked .
It was killing the whole network sending spam and trying to infect other machines on our AD .
Our boss was already blaming Bill Gate 's mother ... On a closer inspection , the problem was discovered .
The system was running a quite old version of WebBoard ( a system for collaboration , which was developed originally by O'Reilly ) .
The firewall has the port 8080 open to allow users to connect .
Some people discovered the open port , found out that WebBoard was running , and took advantage of the vulnerability to upload and run malicious code on the server .
Because WebBoard is a service , running as the System account , you can imagine what happened there .
Did our IT manager know about this vulnerability .
Not at all , even if it was fixed on a posterior build.... How many " forgotten " programs , and non-OS related services do people have running in their machines , unpatched and unattended ?
Think about this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be the right time, yes.
But actually, the problem with todays systems is not as much the OS as the applications that run on it.
Almost every self-respecting OS has an Auto-update function that works more or less well.
Unless you are a paranoid schizophrenic that update the OS manually (forgetting to do it now and then), the OS is relatively secure.
The problem are the applications.
Now tell me, how many of us run to download a new Java machine or a new Acrobat reader, or a new Cobian Backup, or a new WinAmp when a vulnerability is discovered on any of those products.
Hell you will be lucky if you even get to know that a new vulnerability was found on your faithful uTorrent... So when you get pwned, what's the first thing the user blame?
The OS of course... 
At work we had a Windows Server 2008 hacked.
It was killing the whole network sending spam and trying to infect other machines on our AD.
Our boss was already blaming Bill Gate's mother ... On a closer inspection, the problem was discovered.
The system was running a quite old  version of WebBoard (a system for collaboration, which was developed originally by O'Reilly).
The firewall has the port 8080 open to allow users to connect.
Some people discovered the open port, found out that WebBoard was running, and took advantage of the vulnerability to upload and run malicious code on the server.
Because WebBoard is a service, running as the System account, you can imagine what happened there.
Did our IT manager know about this vulnerability.
Not at all, even if it was fixed on a posterior build.... How many "forgotten" programs, and non-OS related services do people have running in their machines, unpatched and unattended?
Think about this...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585510</id>
	<title>Re:Yuh huh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262119680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You shouldn't have to know about the vulnerability.  Your IT should know that you don't expose services running as local system to any thing outside of the local machine's firewall.  Service accounts.</p><p>(And before<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. queues up the "but linux" how many of you would be ok with running webappX as root and exposing it to the www?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should n't have to know about the vulnerability .
Your IT should know that you do n't expose services running as local system to any thing outside of the local machine 's firewall .
Service accounts .
( And before / .
queues up the " but linux " how many of you would be ok with running webappX as root and exposing it to the www ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You shouldn't have to know about the vulnerability.
Your IT should know that you don't expose services running as local system to any thing outside of the local machine's firewall.
Service accounts.
(And before /.
queues up the "but linux" how many of you would be ok with running webappX as root and exposing it to the www?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30591354</id>
	<title>Re:What are you going to target...</title>
	<author>babybird</author>
	<datestamp>1259832060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In what way is security an "afterthought" on these systems?</i><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>...something Windows users have to worry about while Linux and Mac users just sit back and shake heads....</i></p><p>Really? Do you need it spelled out to you? Because you summed it up quite succinctly right there in your own post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In what way is security an " afterthought " on these systems ?
... ...something Windows users have to worry about while Linux and Mac users just sit back and shake heads....Really ?
Do you need it spelled out to you ?
Because you summed it up quite succinctly right there in your own post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In what way is security an "afterthought" on these systems?
... ...something Windows users have to worry about while Linux and Mac users just sit back and shake heads....Really?
Do you need it spelled out to you?
Because you summed it up quite succinctly right there in your own post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30587006</id>
	<title>Nothing new...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262083620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have only been a victim of malware in windows twice. Both times it was through exploits on adobe reader.</p><p>I was happily navigating the internets and reading some datasheets when suddenly my google chrome tab with adobe reader went unresponsive. I was quick to kill it but not fast enough nonetheless. Seconds later I had swarms of randomly named processes hogging my CPU cycles and network bandwidth.</p><p>Turned out to be a rootkit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have only been a victim of malware in windows twice .
Both times it was through exploits on adobe reader.I was happily navigating the internets and reading some datasheets when suddenly my google chrome tab with adobe reader went unresponsive .
I was quick to kill it but not fast enough nonetheless .
Seconds later I had swarms of randomly named processes hogging my CPU cycles and network bandwidth.Turned out to be a rootkit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have only been a victim of malware in windows twice.
Both times it was through exploits on adobe reader.I was happily navigating the internets and reading some datasheets when suddenly my google chrome tab with adobe reader went unresponsive.
I was quick to kill it but not fast enough nonetheless.
Seconds later I had swarms of randomly named processes hogging my CPU cycles and network bandwidth.Turned out to be a rootkit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583906</id>
	<title>i can has FOSS Flash Replacement?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262112180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's time to start seriously chipping away at Adobe's stranglehold on multimedia.  Or at least give it some serious competition that will inspire them to work harder.</p><p>As someone else has mentioned, this might be HTML 5's time to step up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's time to start seriously chipping away at Adobe 's stranglehold on multimedia .
Or at least give it some serious competition that will inspire them to work harder.As someone else has mentioned , this might be HTML 5 's time to step up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's time to start seriously chipping away at Adobe's stranglehold on multimedia.
Or at least give it some serious competition that will inspire them to work harder.As someone else has mentioned, this might be HTML 5's time to step up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583640</id>
	<title>Rob Malda's tiny penis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262110980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda has an embarrassingly small penis. It's barely 2 inches when fully erect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rob " CmdrTaco " Malda has an embarrassingly small penis .
It 's barely 2 inches when fully erect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda has an embarrassingly small penis.
It's barely 2 inches when fully erect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585470</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with million hour video downgrades</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262119500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give me a break.  If YouTube and others don't switch to HTML5 then they will fade away as they are replaced by better sites that do support HTML5.</p><p>That's just how it works.  Doesn't matter if it costs them a ton of money to redo their stuff.  If a better solution comes along then people will use it instead of crappy old systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give me a break .
If YouTube and others do n't switch to HTML5 then they will fade away as they are replaced by better sites that do support HTML5.That 's just how it works .
Does n't matter if it costs them a ton of money to redo their stuff .
If a better solution comes along then people will use it instead of crappy old systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give me a break.
If YouTube and others don't switch to HTML5 then they will fade away as they are replaced by better sites that do support HTML5.That's just how it works.
Doesn't matter if it costs them a ton of money to redo their stuff.
If a better solution comes along then people will use it instead of crappy old systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30586208</id>
	<title>Every now and then...</title>
	<author>stefaanh</author>
	<datestamp>1262079540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every now and then, some writer tosses up some words like "Cybercriminals have long targeted xyz products due to their popularity".  They don't.  Criminals are lazy.   They attack weak and easy spots first.  It has nothing to do with "popularity".  If it were, apache http servers would be the most attacked server application of them all - and they aren't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every now and then , some writer tosses up some words like " Cybercriminals have long targeted xyz products due to their popularity " .
They do n't .
Criminals are lazy .
They attack weak and easy spots first .
It has nothing to do with " popularity " .
If it were , apache http servers would be the most attacked server application of them all - and they are n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every now and then, some writer tosses up some words like "Cybercriminals have long targeted xyz products due to their popularity".
They don't.
Criminals are lazy.
They attack weak and easy spots first.
It has nothing to do with "popularity".
If it were, apache http servers would be the most attacked server application of them all - and they aren't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584884</id>
	<title>Re:Yuh huh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262116740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly Silverlight is more secure than Flash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly Silverlight is more secure than Flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly Silverlight is more secure than Flash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583668</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30592148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30586002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30587058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30588340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30588854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30587052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30587044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30587402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30591354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30588446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30586356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30586176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30586054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30586696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30586152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30586706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1435259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1435259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1435259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1435259.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30586696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30586054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30587402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30587052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30592148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30591354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1435259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30586706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30588446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30588854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30587044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1435259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1435259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30586002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30586152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1435259.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1435259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30589864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1435259.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1435259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1435259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1435259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30586356
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30587058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30586176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1435259.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1435259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30588340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30584436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1435259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30583640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1435259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1435259.30585358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
