<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_04_198252</id>
	<title>IE Flaw Gives Hackers Access To User Files</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265312640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/" rel="nofollow">snydeq</a> writes <i>"Microsoft warned that a flaw in IE gives attackers <a href="http://infoworld.com/d/security-central/ie-flaw-gives-hackers-access-user-files-microsoft-says-075">access to files stored on a PC under certain conditions</a>. 'Our investigation so far has shown that if a user is using a version of Internet Explorer that is not running in Protected Mode an attacker may be able to access files with an already known filename and location,' Microsoft said in a <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/980088.mspx">security advisory</a>. The vulnerability requires that an attacker knows the name of the file they want to access, according to the company."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>snydeq writes " Microsoft warned that a flaw in IE gives attackers access to files stored on a PC under certain conditions .
'Our investigation so far has shown that if a user is using a version of Internet Explorer that is not running in Protected Mode an attacker may be able to access files with an already known filename and location, ' Microsoft said in a security advisory .
The vulnerability requires that an attacker knows the name of the file they want to access , according to the company .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>snydeq writes "Microsoft warned that a flaw in IE gives attackers access to files stored on a PC under certain conditions.
'Our investigation so far has shown that if a user is using a version of Internet Explorer that is not running in Protected Mode an attacker may be able to access files with an already known filename and location,' Microsoft said in a security advisory.
The vulnerability requires that an attacker knows the name of the file they want to access, according to the company.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027238</id>
	<title>Another reason...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1265278980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another reason...why not to use IE,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....EVER!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another reason...why not to use IE , ....EVER !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another reason...why not to use IE, ....EVER!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027200</id>
	<title>Re:Only under certain circumstances.</title>
	<author>deadhammer</author>
	<datestamp>1265278860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The circumstances are apparently running a Windows system with Internet Explorer as the default browser. Come on, how many slashdotters do that?</p></div><p>How many slashdotters' <i>parents</i> do that?  I'd say a good deal many of them.<br> <br>

This affects more than just you.  Or maybe it does affect you: what's your setup at work like?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The circumstances are apparently running a Windows system with Internet Explorer as the default browser .
Come on , how many slashdotters do that ? How many slashdotters ' parents do that ?
I 'd say a good deal many of them .
This affects more than just you .
Or maybe it does affect you : what 's your setup at work like ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The circumstances are apparently running a Windows system with Internet Explorer as the default browser.
Come on, how many slashdotters do that?How many slashdotters' parents do that?
I'd say a good deal many of them.
This affects more than just you.
Or maybe it does affect you: what's your setup at work like?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025996</id>
	<title>my documents, downloads, photos,</title>
	<author>revboden</author>
	<datestamp>1265274000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Huh... what folder names are on almost all MS machines?.. yea that's a hard one</htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh... what folder names are on almost all MS machines ? . .
yea that 's a hard one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh... what folder names are on almost all MS machines?..
yea that's a hard one</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026554</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265276160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>\%USERPROFILE\%\Documents would get you there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>\ % USERPROFILE \ % \ Documents would get you there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>\%USERPROFILE\%\Documents would get you there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026658</id>
	<title>You mean like...</title>
	<author>Sfing\_ter</author>
	<datestamp>1265276580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like...<br>C:\users\\%username\%\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Outlook\outlook.pst?<br>hmmm...??? like that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like...C : \ users \ \ % username \ % \ AppData \ Local \ Microsoft \ Outlook \ outlook.pst ? hmmm... ? ? ?
like that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like...C:\users\\%username\%\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Outlook\outlook.pst?hmmm...???
like that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027072</id>
	<title>Re:This is bad.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265278320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention just about every file under c:\windows...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention just about every file under c : \ windows.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention just about every file under c:\windows...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026218</id>
	<title>Only under certain circumstances.</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1265274780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is nothing to see here folks, move on. The bug kicks in only under certain circumstances. The circumstances are apparently running a Windows system with Internet Explorer as the default browser. Come on, how many slashdotters do that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is nothing to see here folks , move on .
The bug kicks in only under certain circumstances .
The circumstances are apparently running a Windows system with Internet Explorer as the default browser .
Come on , how many slashdotters do that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is nothing to see here folks, move on.
The bug kicks in only under certain circumstances.
The circumstances are apparently running a Windows system with Internet Explorer as the default browser.
Come on, how many slashdotters do that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028506</id>
	<title>Re:Only under certain circumstances.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265285940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Correction, it only kicks in when you're using an obsolete version of Windows, or purposely disabled security features from the non-obsolete ones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correction , it only kicks in when you 're using an obsolete version of Windows , or purposely disabled security features from the non-obsolete ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correction, it only kicks in when you're using an obsolete version of Windows, or purposely disabled security features from the non-obsolete ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026648</id>
	<title>Hmm, how about the document search index?</title>
	<author>Jason Pollock</author>
	<datestamp>1265276520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because there isn't an easily found, well known file that is a handy index of all of the files on your system:</p><p>\ProgramData\Microsoft\Search\Data\Applications\Windows\Windows.edb</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows\_Search" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows\_Search</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because there is n't an easily found , well known file that is a handy index of all of the files on your system : \ ProgramData \ Microsoft \ Search \ Data \ Applications \ Windows \ Windows.edbhttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows \ _Search [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because there isn't an easily found, well known file that is a handy index of all of the files on your system:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Search\Data\Applications\Windows\Windows.edbhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows\_Search [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028824</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm, how about the document search index?</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1265287560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you already know what files to look for in the index, then you know what files to look for without the index.</p><p>If you *don't* know what files to look for, but instead want to peruse the list manually, then this is a poor choice of attack vectors since it requires the user to revisit your site at some point in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you already know what files to look for in the index , then you know what files to look for without the index.If you * do n't * know what files to look for , but instead want to peruse the list manually , then this is a poor choice of attack vectors since it requires the user to revisit your site at some point in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you already know what files to look for in the index, then you know what files to look for without the index.If you *don't* know what files to look for, but instead want to peruse the list manually, then this is a poor choice of attack vectors since it requires the user to revisit your site at some point in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028032</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265283180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no way, I keep it right on the Desktop for easy access.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no way , I keep it right on the Desktop for easy access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no way, I keep it right on the Desktop for easy access.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028454</id>
	<title>Re:Only under certain circumstances.</title>
	<author>farlukar</author>
	<datestamp>1265285640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is nothing to see here folks, move on. The bug kicks in only under certain circumstances. The circumstances are apparently running a Windows system with Internet Explorer as the default browser. Come on, how many slashdotters do that?</p></div><p>All the slackers browsing the intarwebs from work?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is nothing to see here folks , move on .
The bug kicks in only under certain circumstances .
The circumstances are apparently running a Windows system with Internet Explorer as the default browser .
Come on , how many slashdotters do that ? All the slackers browsing the intarwebs from work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is nothing to see here folks, move on.
The bug kicks in only under certain circumstances.
The circumstances are apparently running a Windows system with Internet Explorer as the default browser.
Come on, how many slashdotters do that?All the slackers browsing the intarwebs from work?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026332</id>
	<title>My filenames:</title>
	<author>stimpleton</author>
	<datestamp>1265275260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hi have tourettes. This manifests in two situations, when ordering at a drive-thru and, oddly, when coming up with a file name. I think I am safe from this attack:  whoreShitSlittySlutFuckCrevice.rtf</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi have tourettes .
This manifests in two situations , when ordering at a drive-thru and , oddly , when coming up with a file name .
I think I am safe from this attack : whoreShitSlittySlutFuckCrevice.rtf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi have tourettes.
This manifests in two situations, when ordering at a drive-thru and, oddly, when coming up with a file name.
I think I am safe from this attack:  whoreShitSlittySlutFuckCrevice.rtf</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31029734</id>
	<title>Hmmm</title>
	<author>the eric conspiracy</author>
	<datestamp>1265293140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>IE gives attackers access to files stored on a PC</i></p><p>This is news?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE gives attackers access to files stored on a PCThis is news ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE gives attackers access to files stored on a PCThis is news?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028336</id>
	<title>Re:c:\Windows\System32\</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265284980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not the case.</p><p>It's not like memory dumps don't ever get dumped there if you had an OS crash, and it's not like memory dumps would ever contain user data like user passwords.  There's user data in there. Where does the REGISTRY get saved???</p><p>This is BAD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not the case.It 's not like memory dumps do n't ever get dumped there if you had an OS crash , and it 's not like memory dumps would ever contain user data like user passwords .
There 's user data in there .
Where does the REGISTRY get saved ? ?
? This is BAD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not the case.It's not like memory dumps don't ever get dumped there if you had an OS crash, and it's not like memory dumps would ever contain user data like user passwords.
There's user data in there.
Where does the REGISTRY get saved??
?This is BAD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027834</id>
	<title>ja ja ja</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265282160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hahaha.. mahahahaha! yeah, windows is so secure... you are fucked again you stupid windoof fanboi faggots!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hahaha.. mahahahaha ! yeah , windows is so secure... you are fucked again you stupid windoof fanboi faggots !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hahaha.. mahahahaha! yeah, windows is so secure... you are fucked again you stupid windoof fanboi faggots!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026706</id>
	<title>Understanding Protected Mode</title>
	<author>Bacon Bits</author>
	<datestamp>1265276760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Protected Mode is the "sandbox" feature present in IE7 and IE8.  It uses UAC that's in both Vista and 7 to run in an even more limited fashion, but not in XP.  If you've got UAC disabled, you're not running Protected Mode and you're vulnerable.  There are <a href="http://www.mydigitallife.info/2007/05/26/ways-to-turn-off-and-disable-vista-ie-7-protected-mode/" title="mydigitallife.info">other</a> [mydigitallife.info] ways which Protected Mode can be disabled.</p><p>It's best to check out the <a href="http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archive/2010/02/03/security-advisory-980088-released.aspx" title="technet.com">blog entry on the MSRC</a> [technet.com] and the <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/980088.mspx" title="microsoft.com">Knowledge Base article</a> [microsoft.com].</p><p>We now return to your regularly scheduled Microsoft bashing and Linux referrals already in progress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Protected Mode is the " sandbox " feature present in IE7 and IE8 .
It uses UAC that 's in both Vista and 7 to run in an even more limited fashion , but not in XP .
If you 've got UAC disabled , you 're not running Protected Mode and you 're vulnerable .
There are other [ mydigitallife.info ] ways which Protected Mode can be disabled.It 's best to check out the blog entry on the MSRC [ technet.com ] and the Knowledge Base article [ microsoft.com ] .We now return to your regularly scheduled Microsoft bashing and Linux referrals already in progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Protected Mode is the "sandbox" feature present in IE7 and IE8.
It uses UAC that's in both Vista and 7 to run in an even more limited fashion, but not in XP.
If you've got UAC disabled, you're not running Protected Mode and you're vulnerable.
There are other [mydigitallife.info] ways which Protected Mode can be disabled.It's best to check out the blog entry on the MSRC [technet.com] and the Knowledge Base article [microsoft.com].We now return to your regularly scheduled Microsoft bashing and Linux referrals already in progress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028074</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265283540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are overestimating most people.  The file is called "passwords.doc".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are overestimating most people .
The file is called " passwords.doc " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are overestimating most people.
The file is called "passwords.doc".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027114</id>
	<title>Pesky NTOSKRNL.EXE</title>
	<author>fibrewire</author>
	<datestamp>1265278500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody knows where i keep THIS file.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody knows where i keep THIS file .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody knows where i keep THIS file.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028100</id>
	<title>SAM File</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265283660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C:\WINDOWS\system32\config\SAM</p><p>then a quick password crack later you have their username and password for the system (they are windows users so it is probably blank anyway).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C : \ WINDOWS \ system32 \ config \ SAMthen a quick password crack later you have their username and password for the system ( they are windows users so it is probably blank anyway ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C:\WINDOWS\system32\config\SAMthen a quick password crack later you have their username and password for the system (they are windows users so it is probably blank anyway).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31030932</id>
	<title>Re:c:\Windows\System32\</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265303820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I keep porn in there because noone ever looks. guess it's cool if hackers take that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep porn in there because noone ever looks .
guess it 's cool if hackers take that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep porn in there because noone ever looks.
guess it's cool if hackers take that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028944</id>
	<title>What kind of access?</title>
	<author>Gri3v3r</author>
	<datestamp>1265288100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it is possible to modify others' files through this flaw, what keeps someone from injecting code into an executable and change a highly-used shortcut? The curse of the large userbase...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is possible to modify others ' files through this flaw , what keeps someone from injecting code into an executable and change a highly-used shortcut ?
The curse of the large userbase.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is possible to modify others' files through this flaw, what keeps someone from injecting code into an executable and change a highly-used shortcut?
The curse of the large userbase...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026108</id>
	<title>Modifying hosts.txt</title>
	<author>Jorl17</author>
	<datestamp>1265274420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Modifying hosts.txt could be one of the biggest issues with this one.

And yet, it's just another flaw much like there are hundreds of others in any browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Modifying hosts.txt could be one of the biggest issues with this one .
And yet , it 's just another flaw much like there are hundreds of others in any browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modifying hosts.txt could be one of the biggest issues with this one.
And yet, it's just another flaw much like there are hundreds of others in any browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026470</id>
	<title>Question</title>
	<author>ShooterNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1265275800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Couldn't you access some kind of index file that would allow you to find everything else?  Or are those files too low level for it to be accessed this way?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't you access some kind of index file that would allow you to find everything else ?
Or are those files too low level for it to be accessed this way ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't you access some kind of index file that would allow you to find everything else?
Or are those files too low level for it to be accessed this way?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026770</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1265277060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, in Windows XP, it's C:\Documents and Settings\(username)\My Documents.  That's true whether you are on a domain or not.  So that is certainly a mitigating factor even back in XP, because a remote attacker is unlikely to know (username).</p><p>However, that's not the case on some machines.  The default install from most manufacturers is one preinstalled user, who is Admin, with a default username set by the manufacturer.  Dell uses "Default" for this, last I knew.  So a lot of people are still vulnerable to this.  And the most vulnerable to it are going to be the ones who know the least about how to prevent it.</p><p>They get their Dell, never see a login, are never aware that their username on the machine is "Default", are never aware that Internet Explorer is not the only web browser or why they should take the trouble to switch, and they use the preinstalled Quicken or MS Money to do their checkbooks.  C:\Documents and Settings\Default\My Documents\Quicken\Quicken.qw (or whatever the default filename and extension is for saved Quicken files) would probably get a readable result from around 1\% of machines out there, at a guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , in Windows XP , it 's C : \ Documents and Settings \ ( username ) \ My Documents .
That 's true whether you are on a domain or not .
So that is certainly a mitigating factor even back in XP , because a remote attacker is unlikely to know ( username ) .However , that 's not the case on some machines .
The default install from most manufacturers is one preinstalled user , who is Admin , with a default username set by the manufacturer .
Dell uses " Default " for this , last I knew .
So a lot of people are still vulnerable to this .
And the most vulnerable to it are going to be the ones who know the least about how to prevent it.They get their Dell , never see a login , are never aware that their username on the machine is " Default " , are never aware that Internet Explorer is not the only web browser or why they should take the trouble to switch , and they use the preinstalled Quicken or MS Money to do their checkbooks .
C : \ Documents and Settings \ Default \ My Documents \ Quicken \ Quicken.qw ( or whatever the default filename and extension is for saved Quicken files ) would probably get a readable result from around 1 \ % of machines out there , at a guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, in Windows XP, it's C:\Documents and Settings\(username)\My Documents.
That's true whether you are on a domain or not.
So that is certainly a mitigating factor even back in XP, because a remote attacker is unlikely to know (username).However, that's not the case on some machines.
The default install from most manufacturers is one preinstalled user, who is Admin, with a default username set by the manufacturer.
Dell uses "Default" for this, last I knew.
So a lot of people are still vulnerable to this.
And the most vulnerable to it are going to be the ones who know the least about how to prevent it.They get their Dell, never see a login, are never aware that their username on the machine is "Default", are never aware that Internet Explorer is not the only web browser or why they should take the trouble to switch, and they use the preinstalled Quicken or MS Money to do their checkbooks.
C:\Documents and Settings\Default\My Documents\Quicken\Quicken.qw (or whatever the default filename and extension is for saved Quicken files) would probably get a readable result from around 1\% of machines out there, at a guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026330</id>
	<title>Windows.edb = windows search index</title>
	<author>electrogeist</author>
	<datestamp>1265275260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they grab the windows search index file then they'd have a map to everything else?<br><br>get  \ProgramData\Microsoft\Search\Data\Applications\Windows\Windows.edb  (vista)<br>or  \All Users\Application Data\Microsoft\Search\Data\Applications\Windows\Windows.edb  (xp)<br><br>and http://www.simplecarver.com/tool.php?toolname=Windows Search Index Extractor</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they grab the windows search index file then they 'd have a map to everything else ? get \ ProgramData \ Microsoft \ Search \ Data \ Applications \ Windows \ Windows.edb ( vista ) or \ All Users \ Application Data \ Microsoft \ Search \ Data \ Applications \ Windows \ Windows.edb ( xp ) and http : //www.simplecarver.com/tool.php ? toolname = Windows Search Index Extractor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they grab the windows search index file then they'd have a map to everything else?get  \ProgramData\Microsoft\Search\Data\Applications\Windows\Windows.edb  (vista)or  \All Users\Application Data\Microsoft\Search\Data\Applications\Windows\Windows.edb  (xp)and http://www.simplecarver.com/tool.php?toolname=Windows Search Index Extractor</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026700</id>
	<title>I can see it coming....</title>
	<author>Asadullah Ahmad</author>
	<datestamp>1265276700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If things keep going like this regarding Microsoft and <i>clever</i> words, pretty soon this will be on Slashdot:</p><p>"Microsoft has announced that it is investigating a vulnerability in IE where an attacker can gain access to customer's computer if they are connected to Internet. But as all versions of Windows do not have internet access by default, most users are not vulnerable"</p><p>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If things keep going like this regarding Microsoft and clever words , pretty soon this will be on Slashdot : " Microsoft has announced that it is investigating a vulnerability in IE where an attacker can gain access to customer 's computer if they are connected to Internet .
But as all versions of Windows do not have internet access by default , most users are not vulnerable " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If things keep going like this regarding Microsoft and clever words, pretty soon this will be on Slashdot:"Microsoft has announced that it is investigating a vulnerability in IE where an attacker can gain access to customer's computer if they are connected to Internet.
But as all versions of Windows do not have internet access by default, most users are not vulnerable".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028342</id>
	<title>Re:Or...</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1265284980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How about the system doesn't allow the fecking web browser to read your personal files?</i></p><p>That's somewhat what protected mode <i>does</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about the system does n't allow the fecking web browser to read your personal files ? That 's somewhat what protected mode does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about the system doesn't allow the fecking web browser to read your personal files?That's somewhat what protected mode does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025992</id>
	<title>Re:c:\Windows\System32\</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1265274000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article seems to suggest (although does not explicitly state) that the hacker would be able to read the files, not overwrite them.  If that's the case, I don't see why the System32 directory would be that important, unless you keep secret data embedded in your system binaries.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article seems to suggest ( although does not explicitly state ) that the hacker would be able to read the files , not overwrite them .
If that 's the case , I do n't see why the System32 directory would be that important , unless you keep secret data embedded in your system binaries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article seems to suggest (although does not explicitly state) that the hacker would be able to read the files, not overwrite them.
If that's the case, I don't see why the System32 directory would be that important, unless you keep secret data embedded in your system binaries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026514</id>
	<title>Known file names?</title>
	<author>WoodenTable</author>
	<datestamp>1265276040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm. Does that mean I should rename the passwords.txt file I have on my desktop? Maybe something like kittens.txt? That sounds more secure to me. What do you think?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm .
Does that mean I should rename the passwords.txt file I have on my desktop ?
Maybe something like kittens.txt ?
That sounds more secure to me .
What do you think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm.
Does that mean I should rename the passwords.txt file I have on my desktop?
Maybe something like kittens.txt?
That sounds more secure to me.
What do you think?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025964</id>
	<title>Re:c:\Windows\System32\</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265317080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why I install the Windows OS on my Z drive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why I install the Windows OS on my Z drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why I install the Windows OS on my Z drive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025846</id>
	<title>Micro$oft</title>
	<author>hellraizer</author>
	<datestamp>1265316420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it really whips the user's ass<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>it really whips the user 's ass : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it really whips the user's ass :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31029160</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1265289720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Protected Mode requires a substantial change to the process security model. Basically, until Vista/Server 2008, NT followed what was essentially the *NIX security model, where access permissions of a program were determined by the user/group the program was run by. There are differences in implementation between NT and the various POSIX systems, but that's the general idea. The problem is that when the vast majority of your users run with nearly full access to the system, one misbehaved (vulnerable) program can bring everything crashing down.</p><p>In NT6 (Vista/Server 2008), Microsoft introduced a new concept of process integrity levels, which are a per-process (rather than per-user) level of security. By default, programs run with medium integrity, which means their access permissions are basically what they were before. High integrity processes, such as system processes or anything run with actual Administrator permissions, can access anything but can't be accessed by lower-integrity programs (which helps prevent elevation of privilege from a non-Admin program.</p><p>The relevant datum here is that Internet Explorer runs (by default) with Low integrity, which means it has extremely limited access to the rest of the system. A low-integrity process can't start medium-integrity processes, can't write to the vast majority of the filesystem (there's a special low-integrity folder for things like Temporary Internet Files) or registry, and basically is unable to cause any harm. The trick is, it has these limitations regardless of the permissions of the user who runs the program.</p><p>XP can't do that. If you, as a user, can write to a location, any program you start can too (unless you tell Windows to start it as another user). Therefore, since Protected Mode is just Microsoft's term for "this process runs with low integrity" and XP can't *do* low integrity, no, you don't get Protected Mode on XP, and never will (it would require a substantial change to the kernel security subsystem).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Protected Mode requires a substantial change to the process security model .
Basically , until Vista/Server 2008 , NT followed what was essentially the * NIX security model , where access permissions of a program were determined by the user/group the program was run by .
There are differences in implementation between NT and the various POSIX systems , but that 's the general idea .
The problem is that when the vast majority of your users run with nearly full access to the system , one misbehaved ( vulnerable ) program can bring everything crashing down.In NT6 ( Vista/Server 2008 ) , Microsoft introduced a new concept of process integrity levels , which are a per-process ( rather than per-user ) level of security .
By default , programs run with medium integrity , which means their access permissions are basically what they were before .
High integrity processes , such as system processes or anything run with actual Administrator permissions , can access anything but ca n't be accessed by lower-integrity programs ( which helps prevent elevation of privilege from a non-Admin program.The relevant datum here is that Internet Explorer runs ( by default ) with Low integrity , which means it has extremely limited access to the rest of the system .
A low-integrity process ca n't start medium-integrity processes , ca n't write to the vast majority of the filesystem ( there 's a special low-integrity folder for things like Temporary Internet Files ) or registry , and basically is unable to cause any harm .
The trick is , it has these limitations regardless of the permissions of the user who runs the program.XP ca n't do that .
If you , as a user , can write to a location , any program you start can too ( unless you tell Windows to start it as another user ) .
Therefore , since Protected Mode is just Microsoft 's term for " this process runs with low integrity " and XP ca n't * do * low integrity , no , you do n't get Protected Mode on XP , and never will ( it would require a substantial change to the kernel security subsystem ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Protected Mode requires a substantial change to the process security model.
Basically, until Vista/Server 2008, NT followed what was essentially the *NIX security model, where access permissions of a program were determined by the user/group the program was run by.
There are differences in implementation between NT and the various POSIX systems, but that's the general idea.
The problem is that when the vast majority of your users run with nearly full access to the system, one misbehaved (vulnerable) program can bring everything crashing down.In NT6 (Vista/Server 2008), Microsoft introduced a new concept of process integrity levels, which are a per-process (rather than per-user) level of security.
By default, programs run with medium integrity, which means their access permissions are basically what they were before.
High integrity processes, such as system processes or anything run with actual Administrator permissions, can access anything but can't be accessed by lower-integrity programs (which helps prevent elevation of privilege from a non-Admin program.The relevant datum here is that Internet Explorer runs (by default) with Low integrity, which means it has extremely limited access to the rest of the system.
A low-integrity process can't start medium-integrity processes, can't write to the vast majority of the filesystem (there's a special low-integrity folder for things like Temporary Internet Files) or registry, and basically is unable to cause any harm.
The trick is, it has these limitations regardless of the permissions of the user who runs the program.XP can't do that.
If you, as a user, can write to a location, any program you start can too (unless you tell Windows to start it as another user).
Therefore, since Protected Mode is just Microsoft's term for "this process runs with low integrity" and XP can't *do* low integrity, no, you don't get Protected Mode on XP, and never will (it would require a substantial change to the kernel security subsystem).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026204</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265274720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>XP doesn't have protected mode.  It's part of Vista's vastly improved security model.  It's part of UAC (though sometimes on slashdot UAC is taken to mean just the UAC privilege-escalation prompt).  It's pretty much the most fundamental difference between XP and later versions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XP does n't have protected mode .
It 's part of Vista 's vastly improved security model .
It 's part of UAC ( though sometimes on slashdot UAC is taken to mean just the UAC privilege-escalation prompt ) .
It 's pretty much the most fundamental difference between XP and later versions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XP doesn't have protected mode.
It's part of Vista's vastly improved security model.
It's part of UAC (though sometimes on slashdot UAC is taken to mean just the UAC privilege-escalation prompt).
It's pretty much the most fundamental difference between XP and later versions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026144</id>
	<title>WinNix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265274540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NEW IMPROVED SECURITY IN WINDOWS VERSION 99999!!!

*Slipped in a BSD *nix based OS under our fancy gui*</htmltext>
<tokenext>NEW IMPROVED SECURITY IN WINDOWS VERSION 99999 ! ! !
* Slipped in a BSD * nix based OS under our fancy gui *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NEW IMPROVED SECURITY IN WINDOWS VERSION 99999!!!
*Slipped in a BSD *nix based OS under our fancy gui*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026352</id>
	<title>Firefox Mode</title>
	<author>markalot</author>
	<datestamp>1265275380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run IE in Firefox mode, so I think I'm protected.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run IE in Firefox mode , so I think I 'm protected .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run IE in Firefox mode, so I think I'm protected.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027378</id>
	<title>Steel files?</title>
	<author>syntheticmemory</author>
	<datestamp>1265279760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So that's what happened to my 8" bastard mill file.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So that 's what happened to my 8 " bastard mill file .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that's what happened to my 8" bastard mill file.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027670</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>Bob The Cowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1265281560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why I keep my password file encrypted.  Any I don't use that standard '.txt' extension either.  Mine is 'passwords.rot13'... no one would ever guess that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I keep my password file encrypted .
Any I do n't use that standard '.txt ' extension either .
Mine is 'passwords.rot13'... no one would ever guess that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I keep my password file encrypted.
Any I don't use that standard '.txt' extension either.
Mine is 'passwords.rot13'... no one would ever guess that!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026482</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1265275860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On XP, cookies are stored in "C:\Documents and Settings\xxxxx\Cookies", so if the path to a cookie can be read, xxxxx is pretty trivial to determine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On XP , cookies are stored in " C : \ Documents and Settings \ xxxxx \ Cookies " , so if the path to a cookie can be read , xxxxx is pretty trivial to determine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On XP, cookies are stored in "C:\Documents and Settings\xxxxx\Cookies", so if the path to a cookie can be read, xxxxx is pretty trivial to determine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025842</id>
	<title>*sigh* ... blame Netscape.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265316420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Had Microsoft not needed something to drive a stake through Netscape's heart, it wouldn't have needed to concoct it's own Frankenstein's monster of confused and misbegotten priorities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Had Microsoft not needed something to drive a stake through Netscape 's heart , it would n't have needed to concoct it 's own Frankenstein 's monster of confused and misbegotten priorities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had Microsoft not needed something to drive a stake through Netscape's heart, it wouldn't have needed to concoct it's own Frankenstein's monster of confused and misbegotten priorities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027278</id>
	<title>Another good target</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265279280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The lmhost file point any common web addresses to a malicious site<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...have fun as hundreds of trojans and viruses run rampant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lmhost file point any common web addresses to a malicious site ...have fun as hundreds of trojans and viruses run rampant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lmhost file point any common web addresses to a malicious site ...have fun as hundreds of trojans and viruses run rampant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028622</id>
	<title>Re:c:\Windows\System32\</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1265286540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>symbolic links still fuck you over so that adds 0 security.</htmltext>
<tokenext>symbolic links still fuck you over so that adds 0 security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>symbolic links still fuck you over so that adds 0 security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027232</id>
	<title>Count me.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265278980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know I do, it is the file contains my TrueCrypt volume for passwords, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I do , it is the file contains my TrueCrypt volume for passwords , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I do, it is the file contains my TrueCrypt volume for passwords, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025990</id>
	<title>Holy Flashback, Batman?!</title>
	<author>creimer</author>
	<datestamp>1265274000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The last time I dealt with "protected mode" on a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel\_80286#Features" title="wikipedia.org">80286</a> [wikipedia.org] CPU when DOS ruled the world.  I had an ISA memory card that could page memory above the 1024K limit for applications or as a RAM drive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The last time I dealt with " protected mode " on a 80286 [ wikipedia.org ] CPU when DOS ruled the world .
I had an ISA memory card that could page memory above the 1024K limit for applications or as a RAM drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last time I dealt with "protected mode" on a 80286 [wikipedia.org] CPU when DOS ruled the world.
I had an ISA memory card that could page memory above the 1024K limit for applications or as a RAM drive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027068</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1265278320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Has yet to decide whether to repair it? Hmmm... Ok, they're trying to decide when to. How about doing what every other browser company does and give us the patch NOW?</p></div><p>Some of us are old enough to remember before Microsoft implemented Patch Tuesday.  The official reason was simple - companies were sick to death of having new patches to test, deploy and roll out several times a week.</p><p>Myself, I take the view that if a company large enough to test, deploy and rollout patches on a managed basis can't institute their own timetable rather than rely on that provided by a third party they have huge problems.  But what do I know?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has yet to decide whether to repair it ?
Hmmm... Ok , they 're trying to decide when to .
How about doing what every other browser company does and give us the patch NOW ? Some of us are old enough to remember before Microsoft implemented Patch Tuesday .
The official reason was simple - companies were sick to death of having new patches to test , deploy and roll out several times a week.Myself , I take the view that if a company large enough to test , deploy and rollout patches on a managed basis ca n't institute their own timetable rather than rely on that provided by a third party they have huge problems .
But what do I know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has yet to decide whether to repair it?
Hmmm... Ok, they're trying to decide when to.
How about doing what every other browser company does and give us the patch NOW?Some of us are old enough to remember before Microsoft implemented Patch Tuesday.
The official reason was simple - companies were sick to death of having new patches to test, deploy and roll out several times a week.Myself, I take the view that if a company large enough to test, deploy and rollout patches on a managed basis can't institute their own timetable rather than rely on that provided by a third party they have huge problems.
But what do I know?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028486</id>
	<title>Re:I'm really getting sick of this excuse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265285820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not an excuse. They don't even mention it in the mitigation factors (because it isn't one).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not an excuse .
They do n't even mention it in the mitigation factors ( because it is n't one ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not an excuse.
They don't even mention it in the mitigation factors (because it isn't one).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026580</id>
	<title>financial information vulnerable</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1265276280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That part is easily guessed; "2009 Income Tax Returns" would be easy to guess as well.</p></div><p>Oh shit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... hackers can find out how broke I really am!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That part is easily guessed ; " 2009 Income Tax Returns " would be easy to guess as well.Oh shit ... hackers can find out how broke I really am !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That part is easily guessed; "2009 Income Tax Returns" would be easy to guess as well.Oh shit ... hackers can find out how broke I really am!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026922</id>
	<title>The dreaded passwords.txt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265277600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My friend had one for passwords to loads of sites he visited.</p><p>When his computer was screwing up, i suggested a reinstall of OS.<br>Went through the mess, even after him saying "there's nothing i need to backup", then remembered the passwords.txt on his desktop...<br>Luckily we were able to recover it because he had a copy on a flash drive.</p><p>I really don't understand why people risk having password files / sticky notes.<br>Even doing something like your name / word + some unique number + some random color is enough for a decent password.  (caps on one side of the number)<br>A password should be like remembering a phone number, or a birthday.<br>And if you reaaaally wanted to go as far as making unique passwords for every site, use the main section of the domain, convert it to numbers, append it on to the end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My friend had one for passwords to loads of sites he visited.When his computer was screwing up , i suggested a reinstall of OS.Went through the mess , even after him saying " there 's nothing i need to backup " , then remembered the passwords.txt on his desktop...Luckily we were able to recover it because he had a copy on a flash drive.I really do n't understand why people risk having password files / sticky notes.Even doing something like your name / word + some unique number + some random color is enough for a decent password .
( caps on one side of the number ) A password should be like remembering a phone number , or a birthday.And if you reaaaally wanted to go as far as making unique passwords for every site , use the main section of the domain , convert it to numbers , append it on to the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My friend had one for passwords to loads of sites he visited.When his computer was screwing up, i suggested a reinstall of OS.Went through the mess, even after him saying "there's nothing i need to backup", then remembered the passwords.txt on his desktop...Luckily we were able to recover it because he had a copy on a flash drive.I really don't understand why people risk having password files / sticky notes.Even doing something like your name / word + some unique number + some random color is enough for a decent password.
(caps on one side of the number)A password should be like remembering a phone number, or a birthday.And if you reaaaally wanted to go as far as making unique passwords for every site, use the main section of the domain, convert it to numbers, append it on to the end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027512</id>
	<title>Re:This is bad.</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1265280540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When you go to my website I know what the cookie name is and I know the default file system location for that cookie. This one seems pretty bad.</p></div><p>You seem to forget that Windows XP, Vista, and Windows 7 all have file indexing enabled by default. By accessing those hidden<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.db files, you can get the complete list of filenames in each directory, including the names of the subdirectories in some cases.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you go to my website I know what the cookie name is and I know the default file system location for that cookie .
This one seems pretty bad.You seem to forget that Windows XP , Vista , and Windows 7 all have file indexing enabled by default .
By accessing those hidden .db files , you can get the complete list of filenames in each directory , including the names of the subdirectories in some cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you go to my website I know what the cookie name is and I know the default file system location for that cookie.
This one seems pretty bad.You seem to forget that Windows XP, Vista, and Windows 7 all have file indexing enabled by default.
By accessing those hidden .db files, you can get the complete list of filenames in each directory, including the names of the subdirectories in some cases.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026936</id>
	<title>Or...</title>
	<author>Dorkmaster Flek</author>
	<datestamp>1265277660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about the system doesn't allow the fecking web browser to read your personal files?  The purpose of My Documents is to have an easy space to store everything and keep it organized.  How is the solution to this ridiculous bug to <i>not</i> utilize such a useful feature?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about the system does n't allow the fecking web browser to read your personal files ?
The purpose of My Documents is to have an easy space to store everything and keep it organized .
How is the solution to this ridiculous bug to not utilize such a useful feature ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about the system doesn't allow the fecking web browser to read your personal files?
The purpose of My Documents is to have an easy space to store everything and keep it organized.
How is the solution to this ridiculous bug to not utilize such a useful feature?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028552</id>
	<title>Re:This is bad.</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1265286240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or.... you could assume they are on windows and access all kinds of standard location files. Exchange every exe for common apps with viruses... seems simple enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or.... you could assume they are on windows and access all kinds of standard location files .
Exchange every exe for common apps with viruses... seems simple enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or.... you could assume they are on windows and access all kinds of standard location files.
Exchange every exe for common apps with viruses... seems simple enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026698</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed</title>
	<author>grcumb</author>
	<datestamp>1265276700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>an attacker may be able to access files with an <b>already known filename and location</b> </i> </p><p>One more reason not to keep your files in "My Documents". That part is easily guessed; "2009 Income Tax Returns" would be easy to guess as well.</p></div><p>I'd be more concerned about the accessibility of files like <strong>Normal.dot</strong> - the default MS Word template. Stick an autoexec macro in there, and you'll learn quite a bit about the system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>an attacker may be able to access files with an already known filename and location One more reason not to keep your files in " My Documents " .
That part is easily guessed ; " 2009 Income Tax Returns " would be easy to guess as well.I 'd be more concerned about the accessibility of files like Normal.dot - the default MS Word template .
Stick an autoexec macro in there , and you 'll learn quite a bit about the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> an attacker may be able to access files with an already known filename and location  One more reason not to keep your files in "My Documents".
That part is easily guessed; "2009 Income Tax Returns" would be easy to guess as well.I'd be more concerned about the accessibility of files like Normal.dot - the default MS Word template.
Stick an autoexec macro in there, and you'll learn quite a bit about the system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31031142</id>
	<title>Gusevoisadd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265305320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://astore.amazon.com/best.cheap.cat.supplies-20<br>http://astore.amazon.com/birds.stores-20<br>http://astore.amazon.com/cheap.fabric-20<br>http://astore.amazon.com/cheapdvd0e8-20<br>http://astore.amazon.com/puppyware-20<br>http://astore.amazon.com/reptiles.amphibians-20</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //astore.amazon.com/best.cheap.cat.supplies-20http : //astore.amazon.com/birds.stores-20http : //astore.amazon.com/cheap.fabric-20http : //astore.amazon.com/cheapdvd0e8-20http : //astore.amazon.com/puppyware-20http : //astore.amazon.com/reptiles.amphibians-20</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://astore.amazon.com/best.cheap.cat.supplies-20http://astore.amazon.com/birds.stores-20http://astore.amazon.com/cheap.fabric-20http://astore.amazon.com/cheapdvd0e8-20http://astore.amazon.com/puppyware-20http://astore.amazon.com/reptiles.amphibians-20</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025868</id>
	<title>I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265316540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder how many people have a "passwords.txt" file in their Documents.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how many people have a " passwords.txt " file in their Documents .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how many people have a "passwords.txt" file in their Documents.
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026788</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed</title>
	<author>mlts</author>
	<datestamp>1265277120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>XP does not have a protected mode.  The next best thing would be to run a virtual machine utility and browse in that.  Then when done browsing, close the VM and have all changes rolled back to the previous snapshot.  If you want bookmarks preserved, put that directory on another virtual drive that keeps its state (and doesn't get rolled back like the system.)</p><p>Barring running in a VM, you can create a non-admin user in XP, switch to that for your Web browsing, and only use that user for browsing.  Your sensitive documents and such would remain on your main user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XP does not have a protected mode .
The next best thing would be to run a virtual machine utility and browse in that .
Then when done browsing , close the VM and have all changes rolled back to the previous snapshot .
If you want bookmarks preserved , put that directory on another virtual drive that keeps its state ( and does n't get rolled back like the system .
) Barring running in a VM , you can create a non-admin user in XP , switch to that for your Web browsing , and only use that user for browsing .
Your sensitive documents and such would remain on your main user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XP does not have a protected mode.
The next best thing would be to run a virtual machine utility and browse in that.
Then when done browsing, close the VM and have all changes rolled back to the previous snapshot.
If you want bookmarks preserved, put that directory on another virtual drive that keeps its state (and doesn't get rolled back like the system.
)Barring running in a VM, you can create a non-admin user in XP, switch to that for your Web browsing, and only use that user for browsing.
Your sensitive documents and such would remain on your main user.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026076</id>
	<title>I'm really getting sick of this excuse</title>
	<author>apparently</author>
	<datestamp>1265274300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The vulnerability requires that an attacker knows the name of the file they want to access, according to the company."
<br> <br>
Good thing no one knows to look for: "\%USERPROFILE\%\My Documents\Quicken\qdata.qdf"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The vulnerability requires that an attacker knows the name of the file they want to access , according to the company .
" Good thing no one knows to look for : " \ % USERPROFILE \ % \ My Documents \ Quicken \ qdata.qdf "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The vulnerability requires that an attacker knows the name of the file they want to access, according to the company.
"
 
Good thing no one knows to look for: "\%USERPROFILE\%\My Documents\Quicken\qdata.qdf"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027306</id>
	<title>hosts, lmhosts, SAM files (what risk?)</title>
	<author>Demonoid-Penguin</author>
	<datestamp>1265279340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone who has used more than one OS: Microsoft sucks. Someone (fanboy) who has only used Windows(TM): Linux/BSD/HURD sucks.
Peggy Mann: There's so much we don't know (and we wish to remain ignorant until we can prove a negative). RIAA: What about the starving musicians.  Me: I need more coffee.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone who has used more than one OS : Microsoft sucks .
Someone ( fanboy ) who has only used Windows ( TM ) : Linux/BSD/HURD sucks .
Peggy Mann : There 's so much we do n't know ( and we wish to remain ignorant until we can prove a negative ) .
RIAA : What about the starving musicians .
Me : I need more coffee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone who has used more than one OS: Microsoft sucks.
Someone (fanboy) who has only used Windows(TM): Linux/BSD/HURD sucks.
Peggy Mann: There's so much we don't know (and we wish to remain ignorant until we can prove a negative).
RIAA: What about the starving musicians.
Me: I need more coffee.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026044</id>
	<title>You mean like</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265274180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>c:\windows\system\kernel32.dll?</htmltext>
<tokenext>c : \ windows \ system \ kernel32.dll ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>c:\windows\system\kernel32.dll?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025858</id>
	<title>Steam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265316480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet another reason for games to stop using IE as their built in patcher/notification/whatever. If you really need to display an HTML file, let the system display it with whatever the configured default is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another reason for games to stop using IE as their built in patcher/notification/whatever .
If you really need to display an HTML file , let the system display it with whatever the configured default is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another reason for games to stop using IE as their built in patcher/notification/whatever.
If you really need to display an HTML file, let the system display it with whatever the configured default is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027228</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed</title>
	<author>initialE</author>
	<datestamp>1265278980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But keeping your shit where your shit ought to be is a key best practice - you can't reasonably expect to change that now. Imagine if programmers were to throw their files all over the system directories and requiring all kinds of administrator privileges to run. Now imagine users needing the same rights just to get to their files.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But keeping your shit where your shit ought to be is a key best practice - you ca n't reasonably expect to change that now .
Imagine if programmers were to throw their files all over the system directories and requiring all kinds of administrator privileges to run .
Now imagine users needing the same rights just to get to their files .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But keeping your shit where your shit ought to be is a key best practice - you can't reasonably expect to change that now.
Imagine if programmers were to throw their files all over the system directories and requiring all kinds of administrator privileges to run.
Now imagine users needing the same rights just to get to their files.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026754</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1265276940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it's the same back to Win2000.  But still - you've got a better-than-fair chance of success if you run a series of values like "john", "pete"  for XXX and "password.txt" for the file name.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's the same back to Win2000 .
But still - you 've got a better-than-fair chance of success if you run a series of values like " john " , " pete " for XXX and " password.txt " for the file name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's the same back to Win2000.
But still - you've got a better-than-fair chance of success if you run a series of values like "john", "pete"  for XXX and "password.txt" for the file name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026430</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265275680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Open Windows Explorer.<br> <br>
2. Enter "\%homepath\%\Documents" into the address bar and press enter.<br> <br>
3. Profit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Open Windows Explorer .
2. Enter " \ % homepath \ % \ Documents " into the address bar and press enter .
3. Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Open Windows Explorer.
2. Enter "\%homepath\%\Documents" into the address bar and press enter.
3. Profit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026296</id>
	<title>Re:Holy Flashback, Batman?!</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1265275140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every modern OS that runs on an x86 runs in protected mode.</p><p>But this is something else (A sandbox present in Vista and later versions of Windows).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every modern OS that runs on an x86 runs in protected mode.But this is something else ( A sandbox present in Vista and later versions of Windows ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every modern OS that runs on an x86 runs in protected mode.But this is something else (A sandbox present in Vista and later versions of Windows).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31029042</id>
	<title>Re:c:\Windows\System32\</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1265288820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The article seems to suggest (although does not explicitly state) that the hacker would be able to read the files, not overwrite them. If that's the case, I don't see why the System32 directory would be that important, unless you keep secret data embedded in your system binaries.</p></div><p>One word:  Registry</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article seems to suggest ( although does not explicitly state ) that the hacker would be able to read the files , not overwrite them .
If that 's the case , I do n't see why the System32 directory would be that important , unless you keep secret data embedded in your system binaries.One word : Registry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article seems to suggest (although does not explicitly state) that the hacker would be able to read the files, not overwrite them.
If that's the case, I don't see why the System32 directory would be that important, unless you keep secret data embedded in your system binaries.One word:  Registry
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026480</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed</title>
	<author>Z34107</author>
	<datestamp>1265275860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might not even have to guess the tax-returns folder.  I wonder if you could iterate through all possible files/paths inside My Documents and brute-force a listing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might not even have to guess the tax-returns folder .
I wonder if you could iterate through all possible files/paths inside My Documents and brute-force a listing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might not even have to guess the tax-returns folder.
I wonder if you could iterate through all possible files/paths inside My Documents and brute-force a listing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31030562</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1265300460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>
Does XP have a protected mode? That's the version of Windows most people use IINM. Is this a ploy to get people to upgrade from XP?</em>
</p><p>
XP Users don't have access to protected mode, it relies on <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/02/09/528963.aspx" title="msdn.com" rel="nofollow">features</a> [msdn.com] present in Vista's security model.
</p><blockquote><div><p> <b>Mandatory Integrity Control (MIC)</b>, a model in which data can be configured to prevent lower-integrity applications from accessing it.  The primary integrity levels are Low, Medium, High, and System. Processes are assigned an integrity level in their access token. Securable objects such as files and registry keys have a new mandatory access control entry (ACE) in the System Access Control List (ACL).
</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
* I'm not sure why Microsoft calls their use of MAC with integrity labels  "MIC"  instead... I guess it's because MAC is a NIH  TLA.
</p><blockquote><div><p>User Interface Privilege Isolation (UIPI) blocks lower-integrity from accessing higher-integrity processes. For example, a lower-integrity process cannot send window messages or hook or attach to higher priority processes This helps protect against "shatter attacks." A shatter attack is when one process tries to elevate privileges by injecting code into another process using windows messages.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does XP have a protected mode ?
That 's the version of Windows most people use IINM .
Is this a ploy to get people to upgrade from XP ?
XP Users do n't have access to protected mode , it relies on features [ msdn.com ] present in Vista 's security model .
Mandatory Integrity Control ( MIC ) , a model in which data can be configured to prevent lower-integrity applications from accessing it .
The primary integrity levels are Low , Medium , High , and System .
Processes are assigned an integrity level in their access token .
Securable objects such as files and registry keys have a new mandatory access control entry ( ACE ) in the System Access Control List ( ACL ) .
* I 'm not sure why Microsoft calls their use of MAC with integrity labels " MIC " instead... I guess it 's because MAC is a NIH TLA .
User Interface Privilege Isolation ( UIPI ) blocks lower-integrity from accessing higher-integrity processes .
For example , a lower-integrity process can not send window messages or hook or attach to higher priority processes This helps protect against " shatter attacks .
" A shatter attack is when one process tries to elevate privileges by injecting code into another process using windows messages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
Does XP have a protected mode?
That's the version of Windows most people use IINM.
Is this a ploy to get people to upgrade from XP?
XP Users don't have access to protected mode, it relies on features [msdn.com] present in Vista's security model.
Mandatory Integrity Control (MIC), a model in which data can be configured to prevent lower-integrity applications from accessing it.
The primary integrity levels are Low, Medium, High, and System.
Processes are assigned an integrity level in their access token.
Securable objects such as files and registry keys have a new mandatory access control entry (ACE) in the System Access Control List (ACL).
* I'm not sure why Microsoft calls their use of MAC with integrity labels  "MIC"  instead... I guess it's because MAC is a NIH  TLA.
User Interface Privilege Isolation (UIPI) blocks lower-integrity from accessing higher-integrity processes.
For example, a lower-integrity process cannot send window messages or hook or attach to higher priority processes This helps protect against "shatter attacks.
" A shatter attack is when one process tries to elevate privileges by injecting code into another process using windows messages.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027950</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1265282880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's why I'm a little more careful and named my password file "nul".  Too bad I can never remember where I keep that file...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why I 'm a little more careful and named my password file " nul " .
Too bad I can never remember where I keep that file.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why I'm a little more careful and named my password file "nul".
Too bad I can never remember where I keep that file...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026052</id>
	<title>So that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265274180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... is how online virus scanners work. They know the name of all default install files on my pc. I wonder how they work when browser is firefox running on linux? And what do they find?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... is how online virus scanners work .
They know the name of all default install files on my pc .
I wonder how they work when browser is firefox running on linux ?
And what do they find ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is how online virus scanners work.
They know the name of all default install files on my pc.
I wonder how they work when browser is firefox running on linux?
And what do they find?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026248</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed</title>
	<author>rdavidson3</author>
	<datestamp>1265274900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One more reason not to keep your files in "My Documents".</p></div><p>Problem with that logic on windows 7 is that "My documents" are stored in the "c:\users\xxxxxx\Documents" folder.  Now the hacker needs to figure out what the xxxxx is.<br> <br>

Maybe this is different under windows 7 (or any other version) when the computer is not on a domain.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One more reason not to keep your files in " My Documents " .Problem with that logic on windows 7 is that " My documents " are stored in the " c : \ users \ xxxxxx \ Documents " folder .
Now the hacker needs to figure out what the xxxxx is .
Maybe this is different under windows 7 ( or any other version ) when the computer is not on a domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One more reason not to keep your files in "My Documents".Problem with that logic on windows 7 is that "My documents" are stored in the "c:\users\xxxxxx\Documents" folder.
Now the hacker needs to figure out what the xxxxx is.
Maybe this is different under windows 7 (or any other version) when the computer is not on a domain.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026346</id>
	<title>Re:*sigh* ... blame Netscape.</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1265275320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IT WAS TIM BERNERS-LEE!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IT WAS TIM BERNERS-LEE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IT WAS TIM BERNERS-LEE!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028512</id>
	<title>Re:Steam</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1265285940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Afaict the major browsers do not offer compatible embedding interfaces so if you want to actually embedd a html view (rather than just adding a window to the users sea of browser windows) you pretty much have to pick one engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Afaict the major browsers do not offer compatible embedding interfaces so if you want to actually embedd a html view ( rather than just adding a window to the users sea of browser windows ) you pretty much have to pick one engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Afaict the major browsers do not offer compatible embedding interfaces so if you want to actually embedd a html view (rather than just adding a window to the users sea of browser windows) you pretty much have to pick one engine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027226</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>pisces22</author>
	<datestamp>1265278980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More likely 'passwords.doc' (.wps?) considering the type of people that would do that sort of thing.  But  maybe 'passwords.txt' for someone 'smart' to a point of just having enough rope w/ which to hang their self.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More likely 'passwords.doc ' ( .wps ?
) considering the type of people that would do that sort of thing .
But maybe 'passwords.txt ' for someone 'smart ' to a point of just having enough rope w/ which to hang their self .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More likely 'passwords.doc' (.wps?
) considering the type of people that would do that sort of thing.
But  maybe 'passwords.txt' for someone 'smart' to a point of just having enough rope w/ which to hang their self.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31030454</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1265299500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Or  Passwords.doc.   A lot of folks don't know about notepad  (or Notepad++/TextEdit/ScIte/Emacs) and just use MS word for everything.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or Passwords.doc .
A lot of folks do n't know about notepad ( or Notepad + + /TextEdit/ScIte/Emacs ) and just use MS word for everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Or  Passwords.doc.
A lot of folks don't know about notepad  (or Notepad++/TextEdit/ScIte/Emacs) and just use MS word for everything.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026154</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed</title>
	<author>Dracos</author>
	<datestamp>1265274600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, what blackhat could pass up easy access to anything in C:\WINNT\system32, or the paging file, or any other critical file, from the web?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , what blackhat could pass up easy access to anything in C : \ WINNT \ system32 , or the paging file , or any other critical file , from the web ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, what blackhat could pass up easy access to anything in C:\WINNT\system32, or the paging file, or any other critical file, from the web?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026102</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed</title>
	<author>notseamus</author>
	<datestamp>1265274420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see this being a big problem for business users too.</p><p>We issue all files to external parties as pdfs/dwfs so they're basically read only, but there's a tracker reference for internal use which is on this, and I've seen this a lot before too, so I imagine that it could expose something that is supposed to be locked away for contractual reasons to being accessed, modified and distributed.</p><p>We also use XP, some essential software can't handle 64 bit xp, nevermind Win 7, so we're stuck here for a while at least (or until Microsoft stops supporting XP, and everyone is forced to switch. The sooner the better).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see this being a big problem for business users too.We issue all files to external parties as pdfs/dwfs so they 're basically read only , but there 's a tracker reference for internal use which is on this , and I 've seen this a lot before too , so I imagine that it could expose something that is supposed to be locked away for contractual reasons to being accessed , modified and distributed.We also use XP , some essential software ca n't handle 64 bit xp , nevermind Win 7 , so we 're stuck here for a while at least ( or until Microsoft stops supporting XP , and everyone is forced to switch .
The sooner the better ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see this being a big problem for business users too.We issue all files to external parties as pdfs/dwfs so they're basically read only, but there's a tracker reference for internal use which is on this, and I've seen this a lot before too, so I imagine that it could expose something that is supposed to be locked away for contractual reasons to being accessed, modified and distributed.We also use XP, some essential software can't handle 64 bit xp, nevermind Win 7, so we're stuck here for a while at least (or until Microsoft stops supporting XP, and everyone is forced to switch.
The sooner the better).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31032478</id>
	<title>System files out in the open</title>
	<author>Cyberwasteland</author>
	<datestamp>1265363640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The vulnerability requires that an attacker knows the name of the file they want to access, according to the company."

Fat lot of good that does, all the files that are important to your *system* are all named the same on any Win computer, they could do some serious damage that way.
Not to mention they could use those files to easily find every file on your computer due to indexing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The vulnerability requires that an attacker knows the name of the file they want to access , according to the company .
" Fat lot of good that does , all the files that are important to your * system * are all named the same on any Win computer , they could do some serious damage that way .
Not to mention they could use those files to easily find every file on your computer due to indexing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The vulnerability requires that an attacker knows the name of the file they want to access, according to the company.
"

Fat lot of good that does, all the files that are important to your *system* are all named the same on any Win computer, they could do some serious damage that way.
Not to mention they could use those files to easily find every file on your computer due to indexing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025884</id>
	<title>c:\Windows\System32\</title>
	<author>LikwidCirkel</author>
	<datestamp>1265316660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmm.. the most obvious predictable file names are conveniently the most dangerous for someone to have access to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm.. the most obvious predictable file names are conveniently the most dangerous for someone to have access to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm.. the most obvious predictable file names are conveniently the most dangerous for someone to have access to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31030020</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1265295240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do. But it just lists websites and what password# (1-30) it has. The actual passwords are on an index card buried somewhere on my desk. But that card doesn't include the one for this computer, nor what logins go which each. <br>
&nbsp; <br>It's the best balance of "easy" and "secure" that I could come up with. If you gain physical access to my index card of passwords, it won't help you unless you can decrypt the contents of my drive, to match password with website. If you can gain access to what # password goes with each website by cracking my system, it still doesn't tell you the password. <br>
&nbsp; <br>Not perfect, by a long shot. But fairly easy, and fairly secure. By the way, my username @ slashdot is password #7. Looking at my personal passwords.txt doesn't help you much at all.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do .
But it just lists websites and what password # ( 1-30 ) it has .
The actual passwords are on an index card buried somewhere on my desk .
But that card does n't include the one for this computer , nor what logins go which each .
  It 's the best balance of " easy " and " secure " that I could come up with .
If you gain physical access to my index card of passwords , it wo n't help you unless you can decrypt the contents of my drive , to match password with website .
If you can gain access to what # password goes with each website by cracking my system , it still does n't tell you the password .
  Not perfect , by a long shot .
But fairly easy , and fairly secure .
By the way , my username @ slashdot is password # 7 .
Looking at my personal passwords.txt does n't help you much at all .
: -p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do.
But it just lists websites and what password# (1-30) it has.
The actual passwords are on an index card buried somewhere on my desk.
But that card doesn't include the one for this computer, nor what logins go which each.
  It's the best balance of "easy" and "secure" that I could come up with.
If you gain physical access to my index card of passwords, it won't help you unless you can decrypt the contents of my drive, to match password with website.
If you can gain access to what # password goes with each website by cracking my system, it still doesn't tell you the password.
  Not perfect, by a long shot.
But fairly easy, and fairly secure.
By the way, my username @ slashdot is password #7.
Looking at my personal passwords.txt doesn't help you much at all.
:-p</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31039398</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed</title>
	<author>Bungie</author>
	<datestamp>1265364420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>One more reason not to keep your files in "My Documents". That part is easily guessed; "2009 Income Tax Returns" would be easy to guess as well.</p></div></blockquote><p>It is sometimes better when your files are stored in a standard location like the documents folder. It's so frusterating when you attempt to backup or transfer someone's documents and they're not in the documents folder. A lot of tools (like Windows Search) also assume that's where your documents will be. XP System Restore treats almost anything outside of the documents folder as fair game and might even replace them from a snapshot when you use a restore point.</p><p>Guessing the contents of the documents folder is not as easy as you think. Everyone has their own organization and naming scheme.</p><blockquote><div><p>Does XP have a protected mode? That's the version of Windows most people use IINM. Is this a ploy to get people to upgrade from XP?</p></div></blockquote><p>It's not a ploy to force upgrade, it is simply a limitation of XP's decade old design. Implementing Protected Mode in XP would require massive changes to the operating system. Not only would they have to implement core things like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory\_Integrity\_Control" title="wikipedia.org">Mandatory Integrity Control</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User\_Interface\_Privilege\_Isolation" title="wikipedia.org">User Interface Privilege Isolation</a> [wikipedia.org], but they would have to update all of the system libraries and applications to support the new security model. Even if they did do it all, there's no guarantee that they can just bolt it over all of the existing XP installations without problems.</p><blockquote><div><p>Has yet to decide whether to repair it? Hmmm... Ok, they're trying to decide when to. How about doing what every other browser company does and give us the patch NOW?</p></div></blockquote><p>There are no attacks in the wild right now. Once the patch is released, people will reverse engineer it and create attacks. Out of cycle also creates headaches for enterprise because it is unplanned and they will have to test and deploy it separately.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One more reason not to keep your files in " My Documents " .
That part is easily guessed ; " 2009 Income Tax Returns " would be easy to guess as well.It is sometimes better when your files are stored in a standard location like the documents folder .
It 's so frusterating when you attempt to backup or transfer someone 's documents and they 're not in the documents folder .
A lot of tools ( like Windows Search ) also assume that 's where your documents will be .
XP System Restore treats almost anything outside of the documents folder as fair game and might even replace them from a snapshot when you use a restore point.Guessing the contents of the documents folder is not as easy as you think .
Everyone has their own organization and naming scheme.Does XP have a protected mode ?
That 's the version of Windows most people use IINM .
Is this a ploy to get people to upgrade from XP ? It 's not a ploy to force upgrade , it is simply a limitation of XP 's decade old design .
Implementing Protected Mode in XP would require massive changes to the operating system .
Not only would they have to implement core things like Mandatory Integrity Control [ wikipedia.org ] and User Interface Privilege Isolation [ wikipedia.org ] , but they would have to update all of the system libraries and applications to support the new security model .
Even if they did do it all , there 's no guarantee that they can just bolt it over all of the existing XP installations without problems.Has yet to decide whether to repair it ?
Hmmm... Ok , they 're trying to decide when to .
How about doing what every other browser company does and give us the patch NOW ? There are no attacks in the wild right now .
Once the patch is released , people will reverse engineer it and create attacks .
Out of cycle also creates headaches for enterprise because it is unplanned and they will have to test and deploy it separately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One more reason not to keep your files in "My Documents".
That part is easily guessed; "2009 Income Tax Returns" would be easy to guess as well.It is sometimes better when your files are stored in a standard location like the documents folder.
It's so frusterating when you attempt to backup or transfer someone's documents and they're not in the documents folder.
A lot of tools (like Windows Search) also assume that's where your documents will be.
XP System Restore treats almost anything outside of the documents folder as fair game and might even replace them from a snapshot when you use a restore point.Guessing the contents of the documents folder is not as easy as you think.
Everyone has their own organization and naming scheme.Does XP have a protected mode?
That's the version of Windows most people use IINM.
Is this a ploy to get people to upgrade from XP?It's not a ploy to force upgrade, it is simply a limitation of XP's decade old design.
Implementing Protected Mode in XP would require massive changes to the operating system.
Not only would they have to implement core things like Mandatory Integrity Control [wikipedia.org] and User Interface Privilege Isolation [wikipedia.org], but they would have to update all of the system libraries and applications to support the new security model.
Even if they did do it all, there's no guarantee that they can just bolt it over all of the existing XP installations without problems.Has yet to decide whether to repair it?
Hmmm... Ok, they're trying to decide when to.
How about doing what every other browser company does and give us the patch NOW?There are no attacks in the wild right now.
Once the patch is released, people will reverse engineer it and create attacks.
Out of cycle also creates headaches for enterprise because it is unplanned and they will have to test and deploy it separately.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026636</id>
	<title>Re:Holy Flashback, Batman?!</title>
	<author>Z34107</author>
	<datestamp>1265276460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Protected mode" is a marketing term meaning IE takes advantage of Vista's new permissions model.  It means it's a low-privilege process and has most of its file system access effectively jailed or redirected.</p><p>Long-winded article <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb250462(VS.85).aspx" title="microsoft.com">here</a> [microsoft.com], but I'm guessing the hack doesn't work in "Protected Mode" because the browser itself doesn't have much file system access.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Protected mode " is a marketing term meaning IE takes advantage of Vista 's new permissions model .
It means it 's a low-privilege process and has most of its file system access effectively jailed or redirected.Long-winded article here [ microsoft.com ] , but I 'm guessing the hack does n't work in " Protected Mode " because the browser itself does n't have much file system access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Protected mode" is a marketing term meaning IE takes advantage of Vista's new permissions model.
It means it's a low-privilege process and has most of its file system access effectively jailed or redirected.Long-winded article here [microsoft.com], but I'm guessing the hack doesn't work in "Protected Mode" because the browser itself doesn't have much file system access.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025860</id>
	<title>This is bad.</title>
	<author>Buelldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1265316480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you go to my website I know what the cookie name is and I know the default file system location for that cookie. This one seems pretty bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you go to my website I know what the cookie name is and I know the default file system location for that cookie .
This one seems pretty bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you go to my website I know what the cookie name is and I know the default file system location for that cookie.
This one seems pretty bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026382</id>
	<title>In other news</title>
	<author>Com2Kid</author>
	<datestamp>1265275440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you purposefully disable security features, you become more vulnerable to security exploits!</p><p>Duh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you purposefully disable security features , you become more vulnerable to security exploits ! Duh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you purposefully disable security features, you become more vulnerable to security exploits!Duh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027186</id>
	<title>Seriously?</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1265278800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you turn off something called "Protected Mode" and you're surprised that this may cause problems?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you turn off something called " Protected Mode " and you 're surprised that this may cause problems ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you turn off something called "Protected Mode" and you're surprised that this may cause problems?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31029454</id>
	<title>It really hit me a few weeks ago.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265291580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was listening to the radio, and I actually heard that lady Kim Komando tell people "you need to stop using Internet Explorer.". It made me laugh, seeing as how IE is evil and all.</p><p>This security exploit *really* looks bad on Microsoft, having been unveiled so close to the last one and all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was listening to the radio , and I actually heard that lady Kim Komando tell people " you need to stop using Internet Explorer. " .
It made me laugh , seeing as how IE is evil and all.This security exploit * really * looks bad on Microsoft , having been unveiled so close to the last one and all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was listening to the radio, and I actually heard that lady Kim Komando tell people "you need to stop using Internet Explorer.".
It made me laugh, seeing as how IE is evil and all.This security exploit *really* looks bad on Microsoft, having been unveiled so close to the last one and all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874</id>
	<title>Flawed</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1265316600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>an attacker may be able to access files with an <b>already known filename and location</b> </i></p><p>One more reason not to keep your files in "My Documents". That part is easily guessed; "2009 Income Tax Returns" would be easy to guess as well.</p><p><i>"Protected Mode prevents exploitation of this vulnerability and is running by default for versions of Internet Explorer on Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows 7, and Windows Server 2008," it said.</i></p><p>Does XP have a protected mode? That's the version of Windows most people use IINM. Is this a ploy to get people to upgrade from XP?</p><p><i>Microsoft hasn't seen any attacks that exploit the flaw and has yet to decide whether to repair the flaw through its monthly security patch release cycle or an urgent, out-of-cycle update.</i></p><p>Has yet to decide whether to repair it? Hmmm... Ok, they're trying to decide when to. How about doing what every other browser company does and give us the patch NOW?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>an attacker may be able to access files with an already known filename and location One more reason not to keep your files in " My Documents " .
That part is easily guessed ; " 2009 Income Tax Returns " would be easy to guess as well .
" Protected Mode prevents exploitation of this vulnerability and is running by default for versions of Internet Explorer on Windows Vista , Windows Server 2008 , Windows 7 , and Windows Server 2008 , " it said.Does XP have a protected mode ?
That 's the version of Windows most people use IINM .
Is this a ploy to get people to upgrade from XP ? Microsoft has n't seen any attacks that exploit the flaw and has yet to decide whether to repair the flaw through its monthly security patch release cycle or an urgent , out-of-cycle update.Has yet to decide whether to repair it ?
Hmmm... Ok , they 're trying to decide when to .
How about doing what every other browser company does and give us the patch NOW ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>an attacker may be able to access files with an already known filename and location One more reason not to keep your files in "My Documents".
That part is easily guessed; "2009 Income Tax Returns" would be easy to guess as well.
"Protected Mode prevents exploitation of this vulnerability and is running by default for versions of Internet Explorer on Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows 7, and Windows Server 2008," it said.Does XP have a protected mode?
That's the version of Windows most people use IINM.
Is this a ploy to get people to upgrade from XP?Microsoft hasn't seen any attacks that exploit the flaw and has yet to decide whether to repair the flaw through its monthly security patch release cycle or an urgent, out-of-cycle update.Has yet to decide whether to repair it?
Hmmm... Ok, they're trying to decide when to.
How about doing what every other browser company does and give us the patch NOW?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026222</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed</title>
	<author>Velorium</author>
	<datestamp>1265274840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No kidding. What's there to decide? If you have it ready and it's something as big as this, just release it. I really don't understand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No kidding .
What 's there to decide ?
If you have it ready and it 's something as big as this , just release it .
I really do n't understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No kidding.
What's there to decide?
If you have it ready and it's something as big as this, just release it.
I really don't understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026162</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265274600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Has yet to decide whether to repair it?</p><p>No, has yet to decide whether to repair it now or wait until Patch Tuesday.</p><p>There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticise Microsoft (like leaving things unpatched until Patch Tuesday) but misinterpreting their statements doesn't help anybody.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Has yet to decide whether to repair it ? No , has yet to decide whether to repair it now or wait until Patch Tuesday.There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticise Microsoft ( like leaving things unpatched until Patch Tuesday ) but misinterpreting their statements does n't help anybody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Has yet to decide whether to repair it?No, has yet to decide whether to repair it now or wait until Patch Tuesday.There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticise Microsoft (like leaving things unpatched until Patch Tuesday) but misinterpreting their statements doesn't help anybody.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026334</id>
	<title>Note to self: buy iPad soonest</title>
	<author>WillAffleckUW</author>
	<datestamp>1265275320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm. Looks like I might have to buy an iPad sooner than I was expecting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm .
Looks like I might have to buy an iPad sooner than I was expecting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm.
Looks like I might have to buy an iPad sooner than I was expecting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31030562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31030454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31030932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31029042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31030020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31029160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31039398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_198252_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_198252.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_198252.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31032478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_198252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_198252.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_198252.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027238
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_198252.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_198252.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_198252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_198252.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31030454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31030020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_198252.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31029160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31039398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026430
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31030562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_198252.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_198252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_198252.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31027072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_198252.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_198252.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_198252.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_198252.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31025992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31029042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31030932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_198252.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31028486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_198252.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_198252.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_198252.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_198252.31026144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
