<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_18_2044223</id>
	<title>Microsoft Confirms Update-Linked BSODs Required Compromised Machines</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1266483600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Trailrunner7 writes <i>"Microsoft on Thursday confirmed that the blue screen of death issues that affected a slew of users after the latest batch of Patch Tuesday updates is the <a href="http://threatpost.com/en\_us/blogs/ms10-015-restart-issues-are-result-rootkit-infection-021810">result of an existing infection by the Alureon rootkit</a>. There was widespread speculation after the patch release that simply installing the MS10-015 update was causing the BSOD condition on some Windows 32-bit machines. However, Microsoft said at the time this was not the case and started an investigation into the problem. In an advisory released Thursday, the company said that it now was confident that the restart problem is being caused by the Alureon rootkit."</i> That seems a harsh way to find out that your Windows machine has been rooted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trailrunner7 writes " Microsoft on Thursday confirmed that the blue screen of death issues that affected a slew of users after the latest batch of Patch Tuesday updates is the result of an existing infection by the Alureon rootkit .
There was widespread speculation after the patch release that simply installing the MS10-015 update was causing the BSOD condition on some Windows 32-bit machines .
However , Microsoft said at the time this was not the case and started an investigation into the problem .
In an advisory released Thursday , the company said that it now was confident that the restart problem is being caused by the Alureon rootkit .
" That seems a harsh way to find out that your Windows machine has been rooted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trailrunner7 writes "Microsoft on Thursday confirmed that the blue screen of death issues that affected a slew of users after the latest batch of Patch Tuesday updates is the result of an existing infection by the Alureon rootkit.
There was widespread speculation after the patch release that simply installing the MS10-015 update was causing the BSOD condition on some Windows 32-bit machines.
However, Microsoft said at the time this was not the case and started an investigation into the problem.
In an advisory released Thursday, the company said that it now was confident that the restart problem is being caused by the Alureon rootkit.
" That seems a harsh way to find out that your Windows machine has been rooted.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191034</id>
	<title>Re:But better than not finding out at all.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266487680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about queue up the idiots who demand that microsoft do a checksum on the files it patches...<br>
<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>..because in their universe, files that have been over-written still contains bits of the old files that will execute and cause blue screens.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about queue up the idiots who demand that microsoft do a checksum on the files it patches.. . ..because in their universe , files that have been over-written still contains bits of the old files that will execute and cause blue screens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about queue up the idiots who demand that microsoft do a checksum on the files it patches...
 ..because in their universe, files that have been over-written still contains bits of the old files that will execute and cause blue screens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191694</id>
	<title>Re:Don't worry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266490200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay.  So, where I can download the patch?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay .
So , where I can download the patch ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay.
So, where I can download the patch?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31197176</id>
	<title>Re:Not tech people!</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1266577260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and for some idiot reason, only one major vendor is actually producing a ready-made Live CD which does this.  (F-Secure)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and for some idiot reason , only one major vendor is actually producing a ready-made Live CD which does this .
( F-Secure )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and for some idiot reason, only one major vendor is actually producing a ready-made Live CD which does this.
(F-Secure)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192298</id>
	<title>Re:Malicious Software Removal Tool</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1266492960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note that this entirely insightful comment has been modded Funny, so that it will already be score 5 without the poster's karma being incremented, thus effectively preventing the karma boost. This is the new form of astroturfer mod trolling. Expect to see a lot more of it soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that this entirely insightful comment has been modded Funny , so that it will already be score 5 without the poster 's karma being incremented , thus effectively preventing the karma boost .
This is the new form of astroturfer mod trolling .
Expect to see a lot more of it soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that this entirely insightful comment has been modded Funny, so that it will already be score 5 without the poster's karma being incremented, thus effectively preventing the karma boost.
This is the new form of astroturfer mod trolling.
Expect to see a lot more of it soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192920</id>
	<title>Re:But better than not finding out at all.</title>
	<author>Aphoxema</author>
	<datestamp>1266496020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some rootkits are intentional, like some viruses (I guess they're not really viruses then). As an <em>option</em>, sure, but as a regular part of the update process it can be dangerous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some rootkits are intentional , like some viruses ( I guess they 're not really viruses then ) .
As an option , sure , but as a regular part of the update process it can be dangerous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some rootkits are intentional, like some viruses (I guess they're not really viruses then).
As an option, sure, but as a regular part of the update process it can be dangerous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191206</id>
	<title>bsod</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1266488280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That seems a harsh way to find out that your Windows machine has been rooted.</p> </div><p>There are plenty of people who think that tracking down all the machines in these botnets and disabling them is a reasonable way of dealing with the problem. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That seems a harsh way to find out that your Windows machine has been rooted .
There are plenty of people who think that tracking down all the machines in these botnets and disabling them is a reasonable way of dealing with the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That seems a harsh way to find out that your Windows machine has been rooted.
There are plenty of people who think that tracking down all the machines in these botnets and disabling them is a reasonable way of dealing with the problem. 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31193886</id>
	<title>Re:Broaden their test base</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1266501360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>IF (OS\_VERSION = "Windows XP/Vista/7" AND adminCompetence=NONE) then MALWARE\_FOUND = TRUE;</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
fixed for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IF ( OS \ _VERSION = " Windows XP/Vista/7 " AND adminCompetence = NONE ) then MALWARE \ _FOUND = TRUE ; fixed for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IF (OS\_VERSION = "Windows XP/Vista/7" AND adminCompetence=NONE) then MALWARE\_FOUND = TRUE;

fixed for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192190</id>
	<title>Finding out you were rooted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266492300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is a value in and of itself.  I have even more sympathy for those who have another rootkit, and have yet to find out, than I do for those who had a BSOD which caused them to either a) stop using their computer entirely and reformat or b) fix the BSOD and rootkit.  Actually I have plenty of sympathy for both since I don't use Windows at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is a value in and of itself .
I have even more sympathy for those who have another rootkit , and have yet to find out , than I do for those who had a BSOD which caused them to either a ) stop using their computer entirely and reformat or b ) fix the BSOD and rootkit .
Actually I have plenty of sympathy for both since I do n't use Windows at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is a value in and of itself.
I have even more sympathy for those who have another rootkit, and have yet to find out, than I do for those who had a BSOD which caused them to either a) stop using their computer entirely and reformat or b) fix the BSOD and rootkit.
Actually I have plenty of sympathy for both since I don't use Windows at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191008</id>
	<title>Huh?  I thought Netcraft confirmed it was dead?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266487560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh?  I thought Netcraft confirmed that BSD was dead.   Oh waaaiiiitttt... BSOD<br>Ok nevermind</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
I thought Netcraft confirmed that BSD was dead .
Oh waaaiiiitttt... BSODOk nevermind</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
I thought Netcraft confirmed that BSD was dead.
Oh waaaiiiitttt... BSODOk nevermind</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191266</id>
	<title>Re:Not that harsh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266488400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Coincidentally, the fortune at the bottom of the page when I first read this post said:</p><p>"Your computer account is overdrawn. Please reauthorize."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coincidentally , the fortune at the bottom of the page when I first read this post said : " Your computer account is overdrawn .
Please reauthorize .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coincidentally, the fortune at the bottom of the page when I first read this post said:"Your computer account is overdrawn.
Please reauthorize.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190986</id>
	<title>Broaden their test base</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266487500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft needs to start testing against all known (and future) viruses and other malware. It just makes sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft needs to start testing against all known ( and future ) viruses and other malware .
It just makes sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft needs to start testing against all known (and future) viruses and other malware.
It just makes sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192138</id>
	<title>I remember....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266492000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>some dude saying that Microsoft products were <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/02/16/0151226/Are-All-Bugs-Shallow-Questioning-Linuss-Law" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow"> safer</a> [slashdot.org] because of people getting paid for and that kind of crap......i would like to see his face now</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>some dude saying that Microsoft products were safer [ slashdot.org ] because of people getting paid for and that kind of crap......i would like to see his face now</tokentext>
<sentencetext>some dude saying that Microsoft products were  safer [slashdot.org] because of people getting paid for and that kind of crap......i would like to see his face now</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31204198</id>
	<title>Re:But better than not finding out at all.</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1266574380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>did you even read what you replied to?<br>
<br>
You seem to think that it says the opposite of what it says.</htmltext>
<tokenext>did you even read what you replied to ?
You seem to think that it says the opposite of what it says .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>did you even read what you replied to?
You seem to think that it says the opposite of what it says.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31197360</id>
	<title>Re:But better than not finding out at all.</title>
	<author>aug24</author>
	<datestamp>1266579120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your comment is a little - just a LITTLE! - over the top for what Timothy actually wrote.  I mean, it *is* a harsh way to find out.</p><p>Do you need to get laid by any chance?</p><p>Justin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your comment is a little - just a LITTLE !
- over the top for what Timothy actually wrote .
I mean , it * is * a harsh way to find out.Do you need to get laid by any chance ? Justin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your comment is a little - just a LITTLE!
- over the top for what Timothy actually wrote.
I mean, it *is* a harsh way to find out.Do you need to get laid by any chance?Justin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31193434</id>
	<title>Re:But better than not finding out at all.</title>
	<author>Pharmboy</author>
	<datestamp>1266498600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Now, I wonder who the first poster is going to be to demand Microsoft test their patches for compatibility with viruses and malware?</em></p><p>To be fair, Microsoft is year ahead of Linux in this area.  Linux isn't compatible with almost every kinds of virus/malware.  Wine is helping by providing the APIs needed for some malware, but Linux (iptables in particular) still interferes with the proper operation of some of these programs. Like it or not, if you want to run these malware programs reliably, you should stay away from Linux.  At least Microsoft lets you run *most* of these viruses after an update.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , I wonder who the first poster is going to be to demand Microsoft test their patches for compatibility with viruses and malware ? To be fair , Microsoft is year ahead of Linux in this area .
Linux is n't compatible with almost every kinds of virus/malware .
Wine is helping by providing the APIs needed for some malware , but Linux ( iptables in particular ) still interferes with the proper operation of some of these programs .
Like it or not , if you want to run these malware programs reliably , you should stay away from Linux .
At least Microsoft lets you run * most * of these viruses after an update .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, I wonder who the first poster is going to be to demand Microsoft test their patches for compatibility with viruses and malware?To be fair, Microsoft is year ahead of Linux in this area.
Linux isn't compatible with almost every kinds of virus/malware.
Wine is helping by providing the APIs needed for some malware, but Linux (iptables in particular) still interferes with the proper operation of some of these programs.
Like it or not, if you want to run these malware programs reliably, you should stay away from Linux.
At least Microsoft lets you run *most* of these viruses after an update.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192670</id>
	<title>Re:But better than not finding out at all.</title>
	<author>ozmanjusri</author>
	<datestamp>1266494820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The did get Mark Russinovich's Rootkit Revealer when they grabbed Sysinternals, so it would make sense that they include a scan.
<p>
Having said that though, it looks like it hasn't been updated since Microsoft took it over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The did get Mark Russinovich 's Rootkit Revealer when they grabbed Sysinternals , so it would make sense that they include a scan .
Having said that though , it looks like it has n't been updated since Microsoft took it over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The did get Mark Russinovich's Rootkit Revealer when they grabbed Sysinternals, so it would make sense that they include a scan.
Having said that though, it looks like it hasn't been updated since Microsoft took it over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191816</id>
	<title>The un-harsh way</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1266490620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[A Microsoft representative comes to a System Admin's place of work for a little meeting.]</p><p>MR: Thanks for making time to meet with me.</p><p>SA: No problem. So what's this all about?</p><p>MR: I don't know how to say this, but it seems that you... well you aren't entirely in control of your systems.</p><p>SA: You mean you're selling a new management tool?</p><p>MR: No, no nothing like that.  It's just that there are certain things... Well let's say there are things about your system that you don't know that you really ought to be aware of.</p><p>SA: Oh, I see.  You mean like undocumented registry settings, or DLLS or stuff like that.</p><p>MR: Well, sure.  Technically you *could* describe it that way. It's only....</p><p>SA: Only what?  How would *you* describe it.</p><p>MR: *sigh*.  OK. Some Chinese hacker working for the Russian mob has been using you as his bitch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ A Microsoft representative comes to a System Admin 's place of work for a little meeting .
] MR : Thanks for making time to meet with me.SA : No problem .
So what 's this all about ? MR : I do n't know how to say this , but it seems that you... well you are n't entirely in control of your systems.SA : You mean you 're selling a new management tool ? MR : No , no nothing like that .
It 's just that there are certain things... Well let 's say there are things about your system that you do n't know that you really ought to be aware of.SA : Oh , I see .
You mean like undocumented registry settings , or DLLS or stuff like that.MR : Well , sure .
Technically you * could * describe it that way .
It 's only....SA : Only what ?
How would * you * describe it.MR : * sigh * .
OK. Some Chinese hacker working for the Russian mob has been using you as his bitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[A Microsoft representative comes to a System Admin's place of work for a little meeting.
]MR: Thanks for making time to meet with me.SA: No problem.
So what's this all about?MR: I don't know how to say this, but it seems that you... well you aren't entirely in control of your systems.SA: You mean you're selling a new management tool?MR: No, no nothing like that.
It's just that there are certain things... Well let's say there are things about your system that you don't know that you really ought to be aware of.SA: Oh, I see.
You mean like undocumented registry settings, or DLLS or stuff like that.MR: Well, sure.
Technically you *could* describe it that way.
It's only....SA: Only what?
How would *you* describe it.MR: *sigh*.
OK. Some Chinese hacker working for the Russian mob has been using you as his bitch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191712</id>
	<title>Re:Not tech people!</title>
	<author>ColaMan</author>
	<datestamp>1266490260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We detect that your machine is infected with a rootkit, all of your personal information is in danger of being stolen. Please install a firewall/update your browser/ run your AV"</i></p><p>Typical user response:</p><p>OMG WTF IS THIS SHIT I JUST WANT TO PLAY ONLINE POKER WHAT IS MICROSOFT DOING I DONT UNDERSTAND!?!?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We detect that your machine is infected with a rootkit , all of your personal information is in danger of being stolen .
Please install a firewall/update your browser/ run your AV " Typical user response : OMG WTF IS THIS SHIT I JUST WANT TO PLAY ONLINE POKER WHAT IS MICROSOFT DOING I DONT UNDERSTAND ! ? ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We detect that your machine is infected with a rootkit, all of your personal information is in danger of being stolen.
Please install a firewall/update your browser/ run your AV"Typical user response:OMG WTF IS THIS SHIT I JUST WANT TO PLAY ONLINE POKER WHAT IS MICROSOFT DOING I DONT UNDERSTAND!?!?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191566</id>
	<title>Re:Broaden their test base</title>
	<author>zappepcs</author>
	<datestamp>1266489600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just have patches issued by McAfee and Symantec... that will fix the problem, for certain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just have patches issued by McAfee and Symantec... that will fix the problem , for certain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just have patches issued by McAfee and Symantec... that will fix the problem, for certain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191088</id>
	<title>Don't worry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266487920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The malware has been <a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1592421/microsoft-security-patch-flaw-plugged-hackers" title="theinquirer.net">updated</a> [theinquirer.net] so that it won't cause a crash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The malware has been updated [ theinquirer.net ] so that it wo n't cause a crash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The malware has been updated [theinquirer.net] so that it won't cause a crash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31200374</id>
	<title>Re:Broaden their test base</title>
	<author>poofmeisterp</author>
	<datestamp>1266600240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but you forgot your (tm) after "It just makes sense."</p><p>Economic times are harsh.  Everything, I mean EVERYTHING, must be copyrighted, trademarked, and service-marked.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but you forgot your ( tm ) after " It just makes sense .
" Economic times are harsh .
Everything , I mean EVERYTHING , must be copyrighted , trademarked , and service-marked .
: &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but you forgot your (tm) after "It just makes sense.
"Economic times are harsh.
Everything, I mean EVERYTHING, must be copyrighted, trademarked, and service-marked.
:&gt;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190962</id>
	<title>Better than not knowing that you've been rooted</title>
	<author>jandrese</author>
	<datestamp>1266487440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The bluescreen may be painful, but it is far less painful than having your information stolen by criminals.  Assuming of course the people who own the machines are savvy enough to properly install their firewalls and virus protection next time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bluescreen may be painful , but it is far less painful than having your information stolen by criminals .
Assuming of course the people who own the machines are savvy enough to properly install their firewalls and virus protection next time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bluescreen may be painful, but it is far less painful than having your information stolen by criminals.
Assuming of course the people who own the machines are savvy enough to properly install their firewalls and virus protection next time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190938</id>
	<title>Not that harsh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266487380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah a BSOD is harsh, but finding your bank account mysteriously drained of funds is more harsh. At least they found out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah a BSOD is harsh , but finding your bank account mysteriously drained of funds is more harsh .
At least they found out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah a BSOD is harsh, but finding your bank account mysteriously drained of funds is more harsh.
At least they found out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191030</id>
	<title>Dumbass users..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266487620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trying to blame Microsoft for their own fucktarded infections. Try not to click greetingcard.exe next time, Idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to blame Microsoft for their own fucktarded infections .
Try not to click greetingcard.exe next time , Idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to blame Microsoft for their own fucktarded infections.
Try not to click greetingcard.exe next time, Idiots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192080</id>
	<title>Last October, Dude</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1266491700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So is Microsoft rushing out an update to their Malicious Software Removal Tool to clean up this rootkit?</i> </p><p><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/security/portal/Threat/Encyclopedia/Entry.aspx?Name=Virus\%3AWin32\%2FAlureon.A" title="microsoft.com">Virus:Win32/Alureon.A</a> [microsoft.com] Definition: 1.69.77.0 Released: Oct 23, 2009</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So is Microsoft rushing out an update to their Malicious Software Removal Tool to clean up this rootkit ?
Virus : Win32/Alureon.A [ microsoft.com ] Definition : 1.69.77.0 Released : Oct 23 , 2009</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So is Microsoft rushing out an update to their Malicious Software Removal Tool to clean up this rootkit?
Virus:Win32/Alureon.A [microsoft.com] Definition: 1.69.77.0 Released: Oct 23, 2009</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191540</id>
	<title>Not tech people!</title>
	<author>EMG at MU</author>
	<datestamp>1266489540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Its better they find out this way, than not at all" is not the correct reaction to this. This BOSD is going to happen to the layman a lot more frequently than a tech person. When a BSOD happens to a layman, they don't record the stop code and look it up to see what the error is. The layman will just take it to geeksquad/local tech kid/vendor tech support and say fix this its broken. They wont realize their machine was compromised. They wont change their computing habits so that their machines don't get infected in the future.
<br>
<br>
Assuming that the affected users will clean up their systems and become more secure is wishful thinking.
<br>
<br>
However (in a perfect world), if MS validated the files before patching/updating them, the user could be warned of their infection before their machine gets trashed. Maybe an error message saying "We detect that your machine is infected with a rootkit, all of your personal information is in danger of being stolen. Please install a firewall/update your browser/ run your AV". That way, instead of confusion and anger from a BSOD, the user will be educated and possibly secure their system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Its better they find out this way , than not at all " is not the correct reaction to this .
This BOSD is going to happen to the layman a lot more frequently than a tech person .
When a BSOD happens to a layman , they do n't record the stop code and look it up to see what the error is .
The layman will just take it to geeksquad/local tech kid/vendor tech support and say fix this its broken .
They wont realize their machine was compromised .
They wont change their computing habits so that their machines do n't get infected in the future .
Assuming that the affected users will clean up their systems and become more secure is wishful thinking .
However ( in a perfect world ) , if MS validated the files before patching/updating them , the user could be warned of their infection before their machine gets trashed .
Maybe an error message saying " We detect that your machine is infected with a rootkit , all of your personal information is in danger of being stolen .
Please install a firewall/update your browser/ run your AV " .
That way , instead of confusion and anger from a BSOD , the user will be educated and possibly secure their system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Its better they find out this way, than not at all" is not the correct reaction to this.
This BOSD is going to happen to the layman a lot more frequently than a tech person.
When a BSOD happens to a layman, they don't record the stop code and look it up to see what the error is.
The layman will just take it to geeksquad/local tech kid/vendor tech support and say fix this its broken.
They wont realize their machine was compromised.
They wont change their computing habits so that their machines don't get infected in the future.
Assuming that the affected users will clean up their systems and become more secure is wishful thinking.
However (in a perfect world), if MS validated the files before patching/updating them, the user could be warned of their infection before their machine gets trashed.
Maybe an error message saying "We detect that your machine is infected with a rootkit, all of your personal information is in danger of being stolen.
Please install a firewall/update your browser/ run your AV".
That way, instead of confusion and anger from a BSOD, the user will be educated and possibly secure their system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928</id>
	<title>But better than not finding out at all.</title>
	<author>dmgxmichael</author>
	<datestamp>1266487320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now, I wonder who the first poster is going to be to demand Microsoft test their patches for compatibility with viruses and malware?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , I wonder who the first poster is going to be to demand Microsoft test their patches for compatibility with viruses and malware ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, I wonder who the first poster is going to be to demand Microsoft test their patches for compatibility with viruses and malware?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31193232</id>
	<title>Re:But better than not finding out at all.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266497340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, ok.. I'll give it a shot...</p><p>Any competent vendor would verify their updates against their biggest customers. When a browser gets released it's checked against Google and Yahoo and Facebook, even if those sites might use some bizarre html/ajax/flash combinations. So Microsoft should also verify that their patches work correctly with their biggest customers, the malware authors!!</p><p>I kid, I kid...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , ok.. I 'll give it a shot...Any competent vendor would verify their updates against their biggest customers .
When a browser gets released it 's checked against Google and Yahoo and Facebook , even if those sites might use some bizarre html/ajax/flash combinations .
So Microsoft should also verify that their patches work correctly with their biggest customers , the malware authors !
! I kid , I kid.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, ok.. I'll give it a shot...Any competent vendor would verify their updates against their biggest customers.
When a browser gets released it's checked against Google and Yahoo and Facebook, even if those sites might use some bizarre html/ajax/flash combinations.
So Microsoft should also verify that their patches work correctly with their biggest customers, the malware authors!
!I kid, I kid...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192656</id>
	<title>Re:But better than not finding out at all.</title>
	<author>Johnno74</author>
	<datestamp>1266494700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, nice way to find/create an anti-ms slant on the story.  I can respect people who bash microsoft if they know what they are talking about, but you clearly don't so no biscut.</p><p>Prolems with your theory:</p><p>1) Microsoft updates don't patch files.  They replace them.  Probably to avoid the issues you assume are happening here (even though they aren't).  I'll excuse you for not knowing this.</p><p>2) The file that the rootkit infects isn't the file affected by the patch.  The file MS patched WAS 100\% clean.  The rootkit was either modifying or calling the patched file using a static offset.  After the patch this offset was no longer correct and the rootkit caused a bluescreen when it used it.</p><p>3) Even if the patch was a delta and not a whole file, and the file to be patched was the infected file, and if the patch \_did\_ checksum the file first then the checksum would not have revealed anything was wrong.  Do you even know what a rootkit is?  A rootkit, by definition cloaks itself by modifying the OS so system calls will not reveal the rootkit.  Read the file where the rootkit resides and the rootkit will intercept this and return the original file contents, sans rootkit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , nice way to find/create an anti-ms slant on the story .
I can respect people who bash microsoft if they know what they are talking about , but you clearly do n't so no biscut.Prolems with your theory : 1 ) Microsoft updates do n't patch files .
They replace them .
Probably to avoid the issues you assume are happening here ( even though they are n't ) .
I 'll excuse you for not knowing this.2 ) The file that the rootkit infects is n't the file affected by the patch .
The file MS patched WAS 100 \ % clean .
The rootkit was either modifying or calling the patched file using a static offset .
After the patch this offset was no longer correct and the rootkit caused a bluescreen when it used it.3 ) Even if the patch was a delta and not a whole file , and the file to be patched was the infected file , and if the patch \ _did \ _ checksum the file first then the checksum would not have revealed anything was wrong .
Do you even know what a rootkit is ?
A rootkit , by definition cloaks itself by modifying the OS so system calls will not reveal the rootkit .
Read the file where the rootkit resides and the rootkit will intercept this and return the original file contents , sans rootkit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, nice way to find/create an anti-ms slant on the story.
I can respect people who bash microsoft if they know what they are talking about, but you clearly don't so no biscut.Prolems with your theory:1) Microsoft updates don't patch files.
They replace them.
Probably to avoid the issues you assume are happening here (even though they aren't).
I'll excuse you for not knowing this.2) The file that the rootkit infects isn't the file affected by the patch.
The file MS patched WAS 100\% clean.
The rootkit was either modifying or calling the patched file using a static offset.
After the patch this offset was no longer correct and the rootkit caused a bluescreen when it used it.3) Even if the patch was a delta and not a whole file, and the file to be patched was the infected file, and if the patch \_did\_ checksum the file first then the checksum would not have revealed anything was wrong.
Do you even know what a rootkit is?
A rootkit, by definition cloaks itself by modifying the OS so system calls will not reveal the rootkit.
Read the file where the rootkit resides and the rootkit will intercept this and return the original file contents, sans rootkit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191666</id>
	<title>Why it happens</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266490020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come off the high horses.</p><p>We all know that an OS resides in RAM rather than ROM for the sole purpose of making rootkits (by law enforcement etc.) possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come off the high horses.We all know that an OS resides in RAM rather than ROM for the sole purpose of making rootkits ( by law enforcement etc .
) possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come off the high horses.We all know that an OS resides in RAM rather than ROM for the sole purpose of making rootkits (by law enforcement etc.
) possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191484</id>
	<title>Re:bsod</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266489300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've read an article about this, it mentions the possibility of such a machine handling the life support systems in a hospital.  Major lawsuit there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've read an article about this , it mentions the possibility of such a machine handling the life support systems in a hospital .
Major lawsuit there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've read an article about this, it mentions the possibility of such a machine handling the life support systems in a hospital.
Major lawsuit there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191138</id>
	<title>Re:Broaden their test base</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266488040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Microsoft needs to start testing against all known (and future) viruses and other malware. It just makes sense.</p></div></blockquote><p>Trivially done.</p><p>IF OS\_VERSION = "Windows XP/Vista/7" then MALWARE\_FOUND = TRUE.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft needs to start testing against all known ( and future ) viruses and other malware .
It just makes sense.Trivially done.IF OS \ _VERSION = " Windows XP/Vista/7 " then MALWARE \ _FOUND = TRUE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft needs to start testing against all known (and future) viruses and other malware.
It just makes sense.Trivially done.IF OS\_VERSION = "Windows XP/Vista/7" then MALWARE\_FOUND = TRUE.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192200</id>
	<title>Re:Not tech people!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266492360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>However (in a perfect world), if MS validated the files before patching/updating them, the user could be warned of their infection before their machine gets trashed.</p></div></blockquote><p>Root kits are designed to hide their presence from the operating system.  They can hook file system calls and return what looks like the proper version of the file to anything trying to read it.  Once something is hooked into the machine at a low enough level the only way to detect it would be to boot from non infected start up disk and scan the infected volume.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However ( in a perfect world ) , if MS validated the files before patching/updating them , the user could be warned of their infection before their machine gets trashed.Root kits are designed to hide their presence from the operating system .
They can hook file system calls and return what looks like the proper version of the file to anything trying to read it .
Once something is hooked into the machine at a low enough level the only way to detect it would be to boot from non infected start up disk and scan the infected volume .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However (in a perfect world), if MS validated the files before patching/updating them, the user could be warned of their infection before their machine gets trashed.Root kits are designed to hide their presence from the operating system.
They can hook file system calls and return what looks like the proper version of the file to anything trying to read it.
Once something is hooked into the machine at a low enough level the only way to detect it would be to boot from non infected start up disk and scan the infected volume.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31193026</id>
	<title>Re:But better than not finding out at all.</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1266496440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That seems a harsh way to find out that your Windows machine has been rooted.</p> </div><p>I wish every update had such a botnet killer in it. Damn that would be sweet. I'm tired of the spam and the bandwidth killing. Failing that we could enact a government tax of 25cents an email. HA!</p><p>Q: Would it be possible to run a hypervisor as part of an OS so that the OS maintainer be it the evil empire or ahbuntu could detect and eradicate malware and virii? I've done similar with ghost in the past but I am not up to speed on virtual machines yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That seems a harsh way to find out that your Windows machine has been rooted .
I wish every update had such a botnet killer in it .
Damn that would be sweet .
I 'm tired of the spam and the bandwidth killing .
Failing that we could enact a government tax of 25cents an email .
HA ! Q : Would it be possible to run a hypervisor as part of an OS so that the OS maintainer be it the evil empire or ahbuntu could detect and eradicate malware and virii ?
I 've done similar with ghost in the past but I am not up to speed on virtual machines yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That seems a harsh way to find out that your Windows machine has been rooted.
I wish every update had such a botnet killer in it.
Damn that would be sweet.
I'm tired of the spam and the bandwidth killing.
Failing that we could enact a government tax of 25cents an email.
HA!Q: Would it be possible to run a hypervisor as part of an OS so that the OS maintainer be it the evil empire or ahbuntu could detect and eradicate malware and virii?
I've done similar with ghost in the past but I am not up to speed on virtual machines yet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191150</id>
	<title>I wonder who else is preparing a patch...</title>
	<author>TheNarrator</author>
	<datestamp>1266488100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't be surprised if the rootkit authors were at work on a patch for this BSOD.  They will of course send it out via auto-update.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't be surprised if the rootkit authors were at work on a patch for this BSOD .
They will of course send it out via auto-update .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't be surprised if the rootkit authors were at work on a patch for this BSOD.
They will of course send it out via auto-update.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191118</id>
	<title>Surprisingly their QA labs are not infected</title>
	<author>EMG at MU</author>
	<datestamp>1266488040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure M$ puts this stuff through a lot of QA to ensure they don't release a update that causes a BSOD on a clean machine. Given the amount of malware infected/rooted/fucked up WIN32 machines out there, I would half-expect part of their QA team to validate updates/programs on infected machines.
<br>
<br>
I'm also surprised that none of their QA labs are infected with this rootkit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure M $ puts this stuff through a lot of QA to ensure they do n't release a update that causes a BSOD on a clean machine .
Given the amount of malware infected/rooted/fucked up WIN32 machines out there , I would half-expect part of their QA team to validate updates/programs on infected machines .
I 'm also surprised that none of their QA labs are infected with this rootkit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure M$ puts this stuff through a lot of QA to ensure they don't release a update that causes a BSOD on a clean machine.
Given the amount of malware infected/rooted/fucked up WIN32 machines out there, I would half-expect part of their QA team to validate updates/programs on infected machines.
I'm also surprised that none of their QA labs are infected with this rootkit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31193362</id>
	<title>Re:But better than not finding out at all.</title>
	<author>bmckeever</author>
	<datestamp>1266498180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1547942&amp;cid=31115644" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">here's one</a> [slashdot.org] from 5 days ago.  I think he beat you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , here 's one [ slashdot.org ] from 5 days ago .
I think he beat you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, here's one [slashdot.org] from 5 days ago.
I think he beat you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190960</id>
	<title>The Alureonians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266487440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, they compromise our computers,</p><p>Then, their ships will drop out of hyperspace and invade.</p><p>You'll see. Mark my words. You all will see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , they compromise our computers,Then , their ships will drop out of hyperspace and invade.You 'll see .
Mark my words .
You all will see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, they compromise our computers,Then, their ships will drop out of hyperspace and invade.You'll see.
Mark my words.
You all will see.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31195872</id>
	<title>Re:But better than not finding out at all.</title>
	<author>Garridan</author>
	<datestamp>1266516780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh <i>snap</i>!  Your computer crashed because it had malware!  Harsh man, that was real harsh.  Couldn't the rootkit like, call you up and say "hey man, I'm in ur system, mining ur dataz", rather than just crash?  That would be a lot more convenient, and significantly less harsh.  I mean, what are they going to do next -- make the computer insult you, too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh snap !
Your computer crashed because it had malware !
Harsh man , that was real harsh .
Could n't the rootkit like , call you up and say " hey man , I 'm in ur system , mining ur dataz " , rather than just crash ?
That would be a lot more convenient , and significantly less harsh .
I mean , what are they going to do next -- make the computer insult you , too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh snap!
Your computer crashed because it had malware!
Harsh man, that was real harsh.
Couldn't the rootkit like, call you up and say "hey man, I'm in ur system, mining ur dataz", rather than just crash?
That would be a lot more convenient, and significantly less harsh.
I mean, what are they going to do next -- make the computer insult you, too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191416</id>
	<title>Re:But better than not finding out at all.</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1266489000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry, it looks like the malware authors have already rushed out an update for their rootkit<br><a href="http://www.prevx.com/blog/143/BSOD-after-MS-TDL-authors-apologize.html" title="prevx.com">http://www.prevx.com/blog/143/BSOD-after-MS-TDL-authors-apologize.html</a> [prevx.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry , it looks like the malware authors have already rushed out an update for their rootkithttp : //www.prevx.com/blog/143/BSOD-after-MS-TDL-authors-apologize.html [ prevx.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry, it looks like the malware authors have already rushed out an update for their rootkithttp://www.prevx.com/blog/143/BSOD-after-MS-TDL-authors-apologize.html [prevx.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191992</id>
	<title>Good Job, Microsoft!</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1266491280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I mean that sincerely.  Please BSOD more botnets.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I mean that sincerely .
Please BSOD more botnets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I mean that sincerely.
Please BSOD more botnets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191674</id>
	<title>Re:Not tech people!</title>
	<author>archangel9</author>
	<datestamp>1266490080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe an error message saying "We detect that your machine is infected with a rootkit, all of your personal information is in danger of being stolen. Please install a firewall/update your browser/ run your AV". That way, instead of confusion and anger from a BSOD, the user will be educated and possibly secure their system.</p></div><p>I see those words on the screen all the time.  The problem is, they're delivered by cleverly-designed socially engineered Malware.  The next generation of Malware will do the same thing and imitate the "new" default messages that Windows gives.  How many people per day/week/month fall for the same "Your system is compromised, please click here and purchase this product" every day, regardless of the bad grammar and spelling contained in the message?

As long as I've been in IT, there still isn't a good way to educate users that shirk off all personal responsibility and refuse to engage their thought processes when it comes to PCs.  The world just keeps making better idiots.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe an error message saying " We detect that your machine is infected with a rootkit , all of your personal information is in danger of being stolen .
Please install a firewall/update your browser/ run your AV " .
That way , instead of confusion and anger from a BSOD , the user will be educated and possibly secure their system.I see those words on the screen all the time .
The problem is , they 're delivered by cleverly-designed socially engineered Malware .
The next generation of Malware will do the same thing and imitate the " new " default messages that Windows gives .
How many people per day/week/month fall for the same " Your system is compromised , please click here and purchase this product " every day , regardless of the bad grammar and spelling contained in the message ?
As long as I 've been in IT , there still is n't a good way to educate users that shirk off all personal responsibility and refuse to engage their thought processes when it comes to PCs .
The world just keeps making better idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe an error message saying "We detect that your machine is infected with a rootkit, all of your personal information is in danger of being stolen.
Please install a firewall/update your browser/ run your AV".
That way, instead of confusion and anger from a BSOD, the user will be educated and possibly secure their system.I see those words on the screen all the time.
The problem is, they're delivered by cleverly-designed socially engineered Malware.
The next generation of Malware will do the same thing and imitate the "new" default messages that Windows gives.
How many people per day/week/month fall for the same "Your system is compromised, please click here and purchase this product" every day, regardless of the bad grammar and spelling contained in the message?
As long as I've been in IT, there still isn't a good way to educate users that shirk off all personal responsibility and refuse to engage their thought processes when it comes to PCs.
The world just keeps making better idiots.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191146</id>
	<title>Re:But better than not finding out at all.</title>
	<author>The Archon V2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1266488100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>files that have been over-written still contains bits of the old files that will execute and cause blue screens.</p></div><p>Why not? DNA contains bits that will de-evolve you back into a frog or lizard or caveman.</p><p>

The Archon V2.0<br>
Graduate, Starfleet Academy biology program.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>files that have been over-written still contains bits of the old files that will execute and cause blue screens.Why not ?
DNA contains bits that will de-evolve you back into a frog or lizard or caveman .
The Archon V2.0 Graduate , Starfleet Academy biology program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>files that have been over-written still contains bits of the old files that will execute and cause blue screens.Why not?
DNA contains bits that will de-evolve you back into a frog or lizard or caveman.
The Archon V2.0
Graduate, Starfleet Academy biology program.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31194154</id>
	<title>Re:Broaden their test base</title>
	<author>ATairov</author>
	<datestamp>1266503220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In fact, they should create a public rootkit registry so malware authors can submit their malware for compatibility testing with new Microsoft patches.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , they should create a public rootkit registry so malware authors can submit their malware for compatibility testing with new Microsoft patches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, they should create a public rootkit registry so malware authors can submit their malware for compatibility testing with new Microsoft patches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191196</id>
	<title>Be Gentle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266488220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That seems a harsh way to find out that your Windows machine has been rooted.</i></p><p>What do you want? Some cuddling before breaking the bad news?</p><p>"Sweety.. you got rooted"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. as it goes in the \_wrong\_ hole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That seems a harsh way to find out that your Windows machine has been rooted.What do you want ?
Some cuddling before breaking the bad news ? " Sweety. .
you got rooted " .. as it goes in the \ _wrong \ _ hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That seems a harsh way to find out that your Windows machine has been rooted.What do you want?
Some cuddling before breaking the bad news?"Sweety..
you got rooted" .. as it goes in the \_wrong\_ hole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31194686</id>
	<title>Re:bsod</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266506340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody would design a life support machine to use Windows Update directly, even if they did use an embedded version of XP, Vista, or Windows Server 2008.  I do know of machines (not life support machines per se, but ones which do a specific, critical task) which might use manufacturer certified patches on a special update cycle (where the life support machine is changed out so someone isn't dependent on it).  True life support machines tend to have their own embedded OS (such as LynxOS) which is designed from the ground up to have multiple failsafes, including hardware watchdog timers, multiple modules, and so on.</p><p>In any case, one of the more critical things one does in IT on production machines is to test patches out before deploying them to production.  This is why WSUS was made, so administrators can verify patches on hardware identical to production machines, run smoke tests to make sure everything is working, before the patches are approved and go to the critical hardware.  A sysadmin which just lets production machines autoupdate from Windows Update and ignoring the fact that machines will have downtime will become an ex-sysadmin very quickly.</p><p>If there were a lawsuit, it would be the sysadmin who shot "due diligence" to Hell and gone because he or she failed to do a basic practice, or the device maker.</p><p>I'm all for Microsoft causing BSODs for rooted machines.  Of course, the car analogy comes to mind:  What is worse, a car that is stalled and won't start, or one that will just ignore completely the steering wheel at random at highway speeds?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody would design a life support machine to use Windows Update directly , even if they did use an embedded version of XP , Vista , or Windows Server 2008 .
I do know of machines ( not life support machines per se , but ones which do a specific , critical task ) which might use manufacturer certified patches on a special update cycle ( where the life support machine is changed out so someone is n't dependent on it ) .
True life support machines tend to have their own embedded OS ( such as LynxOS ) which is designed from the ground up to have multiple failsafes , including hardware watchdog timers , multiple modules , and so on.In any case , one of the more critical things one does in IT on production machines is to test patches out before deploying them to production .
This is why WSUS was made , so administrators can verify patches on hardware identical to production machines , run smoke tests to make sure everything is working , before the patches are approved and go to the critical hardware .
A sysadmin which just lets production machines autoupdate from Windows Update and ignoring the fact that machines will have downtime will become an ex-sysadmin very quickly.If there were a lawsuit , it would be the sysadmin who shot " due diligence " to Hell and gone because he or she failed to do a basic practice , or the device maker.I 'm all for Microsoft causing BSODs for rooted machines .
Of course , the car analogy comes to mind : What is worse , a car that is stalled and wo n't start , or one that will just ignore completely the steering wheel at random at highway speeds ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody would design a life support machine to use Windows Update directly, even if they did use an embedded version of XP, Vista, or Windows Server 2008.
I do know of machines (not life support machines per se, but ones which do a specific, critical task) which might use manufacturer certified patches on a special update cycle (where the life support machine is changed out so someone isn't dependent on it).
True life support machines tend to have their own embedded OS (such as LynxOS) which is designed from the ground up to have multiple failsafes, including hardware watchdog timers, multiple modules, and so on.In any case, one of the more critical things one does in IT on production machines is to test patches out before deploying them to production.
This is why WSUS was made, so administrators can verify patches on hardware identical to production machines, run smoke tests to make sure everything is working, before the patches are approved and go to the critical hardware.
A sysadmin which just lets production machines autoupdate from Windows Update and ignoring the fact that machines will have downtime will become an ex-sysadmin very quickly.If there were a lawsuit, it would be the sysadmin who shot "due diligence" to Hell and gone because he or she failed to do a basic practice, or the device maker.I'm all for Microsoft causing BSODs for rooted machines.
Of course, the car analogy comes to mind:  What is worse, a car that is stalled and won't start, or one that will just ignore completely the steering wheel at random at highway speeds?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191332</id>
	<title>ho8o</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266488700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can be like progRess. I8 1992, Believe their</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can be like progRess .
I8 1992 , Believe their</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can be like progRess.
I8 1992, Believe their</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191004</id>
	<title>Most effective mechanism for making a safer 'net</title>
	<author>Nzimmer911</author>
	<datestamp>1266487560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that this approach should become the industry standard for retaliation against malware. What better way to force complacent users to cleanup their machines than to disable them?

Less botnets = more bandwidth for the rest of us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that this approach should become the industry standard for retaliation against malware .
What better way to force complacent users to cleanup their machines than to disable them ?
Less botnets = more bandwidth for the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that this approach should become the industry standard for retaliation against malware.
What better way to force complacent users to cleanup their machines than to disable them?
Less botnets = more bandwidth for the rest of us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191180</id>
	<title>Well at least the Norfolk town IT can rest easy</title>
	<author>Parallax48</author>
	<datestamp>1266488160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like we found the explanation for the Norfolk issue:<br><a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/17/196230/Time-Bomb-May-Have-Destroyed-800-Norfolk-City-PCs-Data" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/17/196230/Time-Bomb-May-Have-Destroyed-800-Norfolk-City-PCs-Data</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like we found the explanation for the Norfolk issue : http : //news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/17/196230/Time-Bomb-May-Have-Destroyed-800-Norfolk-City-PCs-Data [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like we found the explanation for the Norfolk issue:http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/17/196230/Time-Bomb-May-Have-Destroyed-800-Norfolk-City-PCs-Data [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191248</id>
	<title>Re:Not that harsh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266488400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, it could have been a lot worse. Suppose the rootkit were robust against WU patches... then it would still be there and they wouldn't know about it. They were lucky that the circumstances were just right to out the rootkit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it could have been a lot worse .
Suppose the rootkit were robust against WU patches... then it would still be there and they would n't know about it .
They were lucky that the circumstances were just right to out the rootkit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it could have been a lot worse.
Suppose the rootkit were robust against WU patches... then it would still be there and they wouldn't know about it.
They were lucky that the circumstances were just right to out the rootkit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191656</id>
	<title>BSOD</title>
	<author>jdcope</author>
	<datestamp>1266490020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now maybe MS can figure out which update is producing the BSOD on Win7 64bit machines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now maybe MS can figure out which update is producing the BSOD on Win7 64bit machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now maybe MS can figure out which update is producing the BSOD on Win7 64bit machines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191438</id>
	<title>Re:But better than not finding out at all.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266489120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>maybe someone should just demand microsoft to remove known rootkits when patching.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe someone should just demand microsoft to remove known rootkits when patching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe someone should just demand microsoft to remove known rootkits when patching.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191800</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>mlts</author>
	<datestamp>1266490620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even better, it gets the machine off the net, so other people are not victims of DDoS attacks, spam, automated scans, and other crap that might come from a botnet client.</p><p>I admit I sound like a jerk here, but I'd rather have a machine with a BSOD than a rootkitted box.  Reinstalling or reimaging a machine may be a bit time consuming, but it is nowhere the time it would take to recover access to compromised bank accounts, Web accounts, gaming, and dealing with identity theft issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even better , it gets the machine off the net , so other people are not victims of DDoS attacks , spam , automated scans , and other crap that might come from a botnet client.I admit I sound like a jerk here , but I 'd rather have a machine with a BSOD than a rootkitted box .
Reinstalling or reimaging a machine may be a bit time consuming , but it is nowhere the time it would take to recover access to compromised bank accounts , Web accounts , gaming , and dealing with identity theft issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even better, it gets the machine off the net, so other people are not victims of DDoS attacks, spam, automated scans, and other crap that might come from a botnet client.I admit I sound like a jerk here, but I'd rather have a machine with a BSOD than a rootkitted box.
Reinstalling or reimaging a machine may be a bit time consuming, but it is nowhere the time it would take to recover access to compromised bank accounts, Web accounts, gaming, and dealing with identity theft issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191340</id>
	<title>Malicious Software Removal Tool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266488700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So is Microsoft rushing out an update to their Malicious Software Removal Tool to clean up this rootkit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So is Microsoft rushing out an update to their Malicious Software Removal Tool to clean up this rootkit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So is Microsoft rushing out an update to their Malicious Software Removal Tool to clean up this rootkit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31195070</id>
	<title>Re:But better than not finding out at all.</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1266508920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't they just make their operating system incompatible with viruses and malware? Somehow everybody else manages it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they just make their operating system incompatible with viruses and malware ?
Somehow everybody else manages it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they just make their operating system incompatible with viruses and malware?
Somehow everybody else manages it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31195318</id>
	<title>Re:Be Gentle</title>
	<author>Maestro485</author>
	<datestamp>1266510840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a rootkit, and Windows 7 was my idea!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a rootkit , and Windows 7 was my idea !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a rootkit, and Windows 7 was my idea!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31197864</id>
	<title>Re:But better than not finding out at all.</title>
	<author>HyperQuantum</author>
	<datestamp>1266585120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>5. 32-bit Vista and Win7 would be immune as well if the AV cartel had not threatened to approach the DOJ with antitrust complaints if MS implemented PatchGuard in the 32-bit versions.</p></div><p>Could you provide a link to some source for this?</p><p>Too bad that things have turned out like this; the entire AV industry should not have existed at all IMO! And it makes me wonder; they might have an implementation ready, but weren't allowed to use it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>5 .
32-bit Vista and Win7 would be immune as well if the AV cartel had not threatened to approach the DOJ with antitrust complaints if MS implemented PatchGuard in the 32-bit versions.Could you provide a link to some source for this ? Too bad that things have turned out like this ; the entire AV industry should not have existed at all IMO !
And it makes me wonder ; they might have an implementation ready , but were n't allowed to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5.
32-bit Vista and Win7 would be immune as well if the AV cartel had not threatened to approach the DOJ with antitrust complaints if MS implemented PatchGuard in the 32-bit versions.Could you provide a link to some source for this?Too bad that things have turned out like this; the entire AV industry should not have existed at all IMO!
And it makes me wonder; they might have an implementation ready, but weren't allowed to use it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191012</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266487560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That seems a harsh way to find out that your Windows machine has been rooted.</p></div><p>Or a good way, as it will force people to find a way to fix it. Who knows, maybe it will even teach some people some things about the dangers of rootkits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That seems a harsh way to find out that your Windows machine has been rooted.Or a good way , as it will force people to find a way to fix it .
Who knows , maybe it will even teach some people some things about the dangers of rootkits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That seems a harsh way to find out that your Windows machine has been rooted.Or a good way, as it will force people to find a way to fix it.
Who knows, maybe it will even teach some people some things about the dangers of rootkits.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192008</id>
	<title>But the fix will break Alureon!</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1266491400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Users affected by this problem can fix it by replacing the infected driver<br>&gt; with a new one via the system console.</p><p>But that would break Alureon!  Is an update available for it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Users affected by this problem can fix it by replacing the infected driver &gt; with a new one via the system console.But that would break Alureon !
Is an update available for it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Users affected by this problem can fix it by replacing the infected driver&gt; with a new one via the system console.But that would break Alureon!
Is an update available for it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191062</id>
	<title>No Worries</title>
	<author>organgtool</author>
	<datestamp>1266487800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> That seems a harsh way to find out that your Windows machine has been rooted.</p></div><p>Don't worry, I'm sure the author(s) of the rootkit released a patch within 24 hours that automatically updated the infected machines to make the rootkit "compatible" with the security update.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That seems a harsh way to find out that your Windows machine has been rooted.Do n't worry , I 'm sure the author ( s ) of the rootkit released a patch within 24 hours that automatically updated the infected machines to make the rootkit " compatible " with the security update .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> That seems a harsh way to find out that your Windows machine has been rooted.Don't worry, I'm sure the author(s) of the rootkit released a patch within 24 hours that automatically updated the infected machines to make the rootkit "compatible" with the security update.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191856</id>
	<title>Re:Not tech people!</title>
	<author>EMG at MU</author>
	<datestamp>1266490740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I think all 3 of you are accurate in predicting the typical user response, I still think a message clearly indicating what is wrong is still a lot better than a BSOD. There will always be users who disregard system messages, but I believe a warning message will educate more users than a BSOD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I think all 3 of you are accurate in predicting the typical user response , I still think a message clearly indicating what is wrong is still a lot better than a BSOD .
There will always be users who disregard system messages , but I believe a warning message will educate more users than a BSOD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I think all 3 of you are accurate in predicting the typical user response, I still think a message clearly indicating what is wrong is still a lot better than a BSOD.
There will always be users who disregard system messages, but I believe a warning message will educate more users than a BSOD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191142</id>
	<title>Re:But better than not finding out at all.</title>
	<author>geminidomino</author>
	<datestamp>1266488100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends...</p><p>If MS10-015 was meant to protect against/fix Alureon infections, then yeah, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask that it not hose the machine.</p><p>OTOH, if the fix was for something else and it just happened to go tits-up in that particular odd case, then yeah, MS is off the hook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends...If MS10-015 was meant to protect against/fix Alureon infections , then yeah , it does n't seem unreasonable to ask that it not hose the machine.OTOH , if the fix was for something else and it just happened to go tits-up in that particular odd case , then yeah , MS is off the hook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends...If MS10-015 was meant to protect against/fix Alureon infections, then yeah, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask that it not hose the machine.OTOH, if the fix was for something else and it just happened to go tits-up in that particular odd case, then yeah, MS is off the hook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191684</id>
	<title>rooted?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266490140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People need to stop referring to Windows boxes as being rooted<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... Windows does not, nor has it ever had, a root account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People need to stop referring to Windows boxes as being rooted .... Windows does not , nor has it ever had , a root account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People need to stop referring to Windows boxes as being rooted .... Windows does not, nor has it ever had, a root account.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191678</id>
	<title>Don't use old software</title>
	<author>Scarumanga</author>
	<datestamp>1266490140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>One solution would be to not use ancient operating systems that are 10 years old.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One solution would be to not use ancient operating systems that are 10 years old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One solution would be to not use ancient operating systems that are 10 years old.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192972</id>
	<title>Re:But better than not finding out at all.</title>
	<author>dhavleak</author>
	<datestamp>1266496200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that award goes to to Timothy -- our fearless fudding editor. I mean, consider how he ended TFA: <i>"That seems a harsh way to find out that your Windows machine has been rooted."</i>.

</p><p>Alright, maybe that's a harsh assessment, but after countless other posts like this I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of doubt. Let's recap:<br>
1. The Alureon rootkit isn't new, and should be detected by any AV worth it's salt
<br>2. That being the case, affected users were not running AV, or were infected before they installed their AV.
<br>3. Affected users are running a 10-year old OS.
<br>4. More recent OSes (64-bit Vista and Win7) have inbuilt measures that render Alureon ineffective (PatchGuard - which checks for signatures on kernel modules).
<br>5. 32-bit Vista and Win7 would be immune as well if the AV cartel had not threatened to approach the DOJ with antitrust complaints if MS implemented PatchGuard in the 32-bit versions.
<br>6. MS has made online scanning tools, a malware removal tool, and a free AV/security suite (MS security essentials) that any of the affected users could have used, prior to the update, and they would have been fine.

</p><p>So now, short of forcibly enrolling users in "install and run AV 101", what else could you be calling for, Mr. Timothy (editor) when you say that you think this is a particularly harsh way to find out that you've been infected? What the fuck else do you think MS should do? Go back in time, and fucking add patch guard to XP before they release it? I'm really fucking interested in hearing your opinion on this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that award goes to to Timothy -- our fearless fudding editor .
I mean , consider how he ended TFA : " That seems a harsh way to find out that your Windows machine has been rooted. " .
Alright , maybe that 's a harsh assessment , but after countless other posts like this I 'm not inclined to give him the benefit of doubt .
Let 's recap : 1 .
The Alureon rootkit is n't new , and should be detected by any AV worth it 's salt 2 .
That being the case , affected users were not running AV , or were infected before they installed their AV .
3. Affected users are running a 10-year old OS .
4. More recent OSes ( 64-bit Vista and Win7 ) have inbuilt measures that render Alureon ineffective ( PatchGuard - which checks for signatures on kernel modules ) .
5. 32-bit Vista and Win7 would be immune as well if the AV cartel had not threatened to approach the DOJ with antitrust complaints if MS implemented PatchGuard in the 32-bit versions .
6. MS has made online scanning tools , a malware removal tool , and a free AV/security suite ( MS security essentials ) that any of the affected users could have used , prior to the update , and they would have been fine .
So now , short of forcibly enrolling users in " install and run AV 101 " , what else could you be calling for , Mr. Timothy ( editor ) when you say that you think this is a particularly harsh way to find out that you 've been infected ?
What the fuck else do you think MS should do ?
Go back in time , and fucking add patch guard to XP before they release it ?
I 'm really fucking interested in hearing your opinion on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that award goes to to Timothy -- our fearless fudding editor.
I mean, consider how he ended TFA: "That seems a harsh way to find out that your Windows machine has been rooted.".
Alright, maybe that's a harsh assessment, but after countless other posts like this I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of doubt.
Let's recap:
1.
The Alureon rootkit isn't new, and should be detected by any AV worth it's salt
2.
That being the case, affected users were not running AV, or were infected before they installed their AV.
3. Affected users are running a 10-year old OS.
4. More recent OSes (64-bit Vista and Win7) have inbuilt measures that render Alureon ineffective (PatchGuard - which checks for signatures on kernel modules).
5. 32-bit Vista and Win7 would be immune as well if the AV cartel had not threatened to approach the DOJ with antitrust complaints if MS implemented PatchGuard in the 32-bit versions.
6. MS has made online scanning tools, a malware removal tool, and a free AV/security suite (MS security essentials) that any of the affected users could have used, prior to the update, and they would have been fine.
So now, short of forcibly enrolling users in "install and run AV 101", what else could you be calling for, Mr. Timothy (editor) when you say that you think this is a particularly harsh way to find out that you've been infected?
What the fuck else do you think MS should do?
Go back in time, and fucking add patch guard to XP before they release it?
I'm really fucking interested in hearing your opinion on this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31195070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31194154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31193434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31197176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31193232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31197864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31193886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31194686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31195318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31204198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31193026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31195872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31193362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31197360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31200374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2044223_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2044223.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2044223.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2044223.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2044223.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2044223.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2044223.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31195318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2044223.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31200374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31194154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31193886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2044223.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31194686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2044223.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2044223.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2044223.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2044223.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2044223.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31193362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31193026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31193232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192972
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31195872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31197864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31197360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31195070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192656
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31204198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31193434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2044223.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31197176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2044223.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2044223.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31190962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2044223.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31192008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2044223.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2044223.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2044223.31191656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
