<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_16_0113249</id>
	<title>The First Windows 7 Zero-Day Exploit</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1258365240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>xploraiswakco writes with <a href="http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/scrt/E9592E1A9719742ACC25766F0066B38D">the first Microsoft-confirmed Windows 7 zero-day</a> vulnerability, with a demonstration exploit publicly available. The problem is in SMBv2 and SMBv1 and affects Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2, but not Vista, XP, or Windows Server 2003. A maliciously crafted URI could hard-crash affected machines beyond any remedy besides pushing the white button. <i>"Microsoft said it may patch the problem, but didn't spell out a timetable or commit to an out-of-cycle update before the next regularly-scheduled Patch Tuesday of December 8. Instead, the company suggested users block TCP ports 139 and 445 at the firewall."</i> Reader xploraiswakco adds, "As important as this the mentioned article is, it should also be pointed out that any IT staff worth their pay packet should already have port 139 blocked at the firewall, and probably port 445, too."</htmltext>
<tokenext>xploraiswakco writes with the first Microsoft-confirmed Windows 7 zero-day vulnerability , with a demonstration exploit publicly available .
The problem is in SMBv2 and SMBv1 and affects Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 , but not Vista , XP , or Windows Server 2003 .
A maliciously crafted URI could hard-crash affected machines beyond any remedy besides pushing the white button .
" Microsoft said it may patch the problem , but did n't spell out a timetable or commit to an out-of-cycle update before the next regularly-scheduled Patch Tuesday of December 8 .
Instead , the company suggested users block TCP ports 139 and 445 at the firewall .
" Reader xploraiswakco adds , " As important as this the mentioned article is , it should also be pointed out that any IT staff worth their pay packet should already have port 139 blocked at the firewall , and probably port 445 , too .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>xploraiswakco writes with the first Microsoft-confirmed Windows 7 zero-day vulnerability, with a demonstration exploit publicly available.
The problem is in SMBv2 and SMBv1 and affects Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2, but not Vista, XP, or Windows Server 2003.
A maliciously crafted URI could hard-crash affected machines beyond any remedy besides pushing the white button.
"Microsoft said it may patch the problem, but didn't spell out a timetable or commit to an out-of-cycle update before the next regularly-scheduled Patch Tuesday of December 8.
Instead, the company suggested users block TCP ports 139 and 445 at the firewall.
" Reader xploraiswakco adds, "As important as this the mentioned article is, it should also be pointed out that any IT staff worth their pay packet should already have port 139 blocked at the firewall, and probably port 445, too.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114228</id>
	<title>Re:Secured by Default</title>
	<author>asifyoucare</author>
	<datestamp>1258379460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody seems to be getting how serious this could be.  Imagine even just a few infected machines (which have been infected via ANOTHER vector) inside the corporate network, lying dormant until the appointed hour, at which time they starting finding all the vulnerable computers via LDAP in Active Directory, and then sending them packets of death,</p><p>Not pretty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody seems to be getting how serious this could be .
Imagine even just a few infected machines ( which have been infected via ANOTHER vector ) inside the corporate network , lying dormant until the appointed hour , at which time they starting finding all the vulnerable computers via LDAP in Active Directory , and then sending them packets of death,Not pretty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody seems to be getting how serious this could be.
Imagine even just a few infected machines (which have been infected via ANOTHER vector) inside the corporate network, lying dormant until the appointed hour, at which time they starting finding all the vulnerable computers via LDAP in Active Directory, and then sending them packets of death,Not pretty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30116372</id>
	<title>Incompetence???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258391700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Close to 20 years of this shit, 10 years of focus on it, and they're still spewing out servers that don't do bounds checking on input...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Close to 20 years of this shit , 10 years of focus on it , and they 're still spewing out servers that do n't do bounds checking on input.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Close to 20 years of this shit, 10 years of focus on it, and they're still spewing out servers that don't do bounds checking on input...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113454</id>
	<title>Re:How is this zero-day?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258369920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>The zero-day vulnerability was first reported by Canadian researcher Laurent Gaffie <b>last Wednesday</b> </i> </p><p>OK the exploit is almost a week old already.  How is this "zero-day"?  In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."</p></div><p>Dude, fucking semantics. Who cares? It's not like it's years old or anything. Chill out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The zero-day vulnerability was first reported by Canadian researcher Laurent Gaffie last Wednesday OK the exploit is almost a week old already .
How is this " zero-day " ?
In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya : " You keep using that word .
I do not think it means what you think it means .
" Dude , fucking semantics .
Who cares ?
It 's not like it 's years old or anything .
Chill out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The zero-day vulnerability was first reported by Canadian researcher Laurent Gaffie last Wednesday  OK the exploit is almost a week old already.
How is this "zero-day"?
In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
"Dude, fucking semantics.
Who cares?
It's not like it's years old or anything.
Chill out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30116386</id>
	<title>Re:How is this zero-day?</title>
	<author>Deanalator</author>
	<datestamp>1258391760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's referring to 0day in the past tense.   *confirmed* the first 0day</p><p>Also 139/445 blockage really doesn't matter.  Workstation attacks are generally part of the "spread" portion of attack in the whole penetrate -&gt; (log -&gt; spread)* -&gt; goal -&gt; exit   model of attack</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's referring to 0day in the past tense .
* confirmed * the first 0dayAlso 139/445 blockage really does n't matter .
Workstation attacks are generally part of the " spread " portion of attack in the whole penetrate - &gt; ( log - &gt; spread ) * - &gt; goal - &gt; exit model of attack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's referring to 0day in the past tense.
*confirmed* the first 0dayAlso 139/445 blockage really doesn't matter.
Workstation attacks are generally part of the "spread" portion of attack in the whole penetrate -&gt; (log -&gt; spread)* -&gt; goal -&gt; exit   model of attack</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114528</id>
	<title>I'm used to it</title>
	<author>dogganos</author>
	<datestamp>1258382640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This god damned code of windows sharing keeps bugging us for years! I've been 10 years net admin at a university with over 25K connected computers, and as long as I remember, port 445 and 139, 137 are always the target!<br>How bad a code can be??????</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This god damned code of windows sharing keeps bugging us for years !
I 've been 10 years net admin at a university with over 25K connected computers , and as long as I remember , port 445 and 139 , 137 are always the target ! How bad a code can be ? ? ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This god damned code of windows sharing keeps bugging us for years!
I've been 10 years net admin at a university with over 25K connected computers, and as long as I remember, port 445 and 139, 137 are always the target!How bad a code can be?????
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113430</id>
	<title>Secured by Default</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258369620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Public networks have all inbound ports blocked by default. Changing a network type to anything other than public requires admin rights, so this would have to be an internal DOS attack realistically.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Public networks have all inbound ports blocked by default .
Changing a network type to anything other than public requires admin rights , so this would have to be an internal DOS attack realistically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Public networks have all inbound ports blocked by default.
Changing a network type to anything other than public requires admin rights, so this would have to be an internal DOS attack realistically.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30120442</id>
	<title>no back port ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258404960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally a useful feature in Windows 7. Just wait and see Microsoft refuse to back port this to XP , thus taking the next step in the forced upgrade cycle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally a useful feature in Windows 7 .
Just wait and see Microsoft refuse to back port this to XP , thus taking the next step in the forced upgrade cycle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally a useful feature in Windows 7.
Just wait and see Microsoft refuse to back port this to XP , thus taking the next step in the forced upgrade cycle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113408</id>
	<title>How is this zero-day?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258369320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The zero-day vulnerability was first reported by Canadian researcher Laurent Gaffie <b>last Wednesday</b> </i> <p>OK the exploit is almost a week old already.  How is this "zero-day"?  In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The zero-day vulnerability was first reported by Canadian researcher Laurent Gaffie last Wednesday OK the exploit is almost a week old already .
How is this " zero-day " ?
In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya : " You keep using that word .
I do not think it means what you think it means .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The zero-day vulnerability was first reported by Canadian researcher Laurent Gaffie last Wednesday  OK the exploit is almost a week old already.
How is this "zero-day"?
In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113962</id>
	<title>Re:How is this zero-day?</title>
	<author>ozmanjusri</author>
	<datestamp>1258376700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Who cares? It's not like it's years old or anything. Chill out.</i>
<p>
Exactly.
</p><p>
It's not as though Windows exploits are a scarce event. There'll be plenty more where that came from, so you can be semantically correct next time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares ?
It 's not like it 's years old or anything .
Chill out .
Exactly . It 's not as though Windows exploits are a scarce event .
There 'll be plenty more where that came from , so you can be semantically correct next time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares?
It's not like it's years old or anything.
Chill out.
Exactly.

It's not as though Windows exploits are a scarce event.
There'll be plenty more where that came from, so you can be semantically correct next time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30120072</id>
	<title>Re:pushing the white button?? what does that mean?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258403820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are an idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30118116</id>
	<title>Some mistakes in the articles and comments</title>
	<author>zukinux</author>
	<datestamp>1258397940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hello, This advisory had been published at the 9th of September <a href="http://g-laurent.blogspot.com/2009/09/windows-vista7-smb20-negotiate-protocol.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://g-laurent.blogspot.com/2009/09/windows-vista7-smb20-negotiate-protocol.html</a> [blogspot.com], about a Kernel Crush made by specially crafted SMB packet to port 445. This advisory were published in the begining as Denial-Of-Service but soon people found that it was exploitable! Soon lots of people tried to be the first to create working exploit for the MS09-050 (SMB2). Till then, Microsoft told that un-till an update will be available you can disable SMB2 and not ports 445/139.<br> <br>
Also, CoreImpact had first published an remote exploit PoC to their members at the 17th of Septemeber. Which means that an exploit had been found to subscribers at 17/9!!.<br>So this article is basically wrong. Anyways, more researchers still tried to create public exploit for it such as <a href="http://blog.metasploit.com/2009/10/smb2-351-packets-from-trampoline.html" title="metasploit.com" rel="nofollow">http://blog.metasploit.com/2009/10/smb2-351-packets-from-trampoline.html</a> [metasploit.com] which describes what his way of exploiting this using 351 packets to achieve jump to his code (remote code execution).<br> <br>

So... This article has more than a few points which are not accurate including the "The first windows 7 zero day exploit" title.
<br>
Cheers.<br>
Zuk</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello , This advisory had been published at the 9th of September http : //g-laurent.blogspot.com/2009/09/windows-vista7-smb20-negotiate-protocol.html [ blogspot.com ] , about a Kernel Crush made by specially crafted SMB packet to port 445 .
This advisory were published in the begining as Denial-Of-Service but soon people found that it was exploitable !
Soon lots of people tried to be the first to create working exploit for the MS09-050 ( SMB2 ) .
Till then , Microsoft told that un-till an update will be available you can disable SMB2 and not ports 445/139 .
Also , CoreImpact had first published an remote exploit PoC to their members at the 17th of Septemeber .
Which means that an exploit had been found to subscribers at 17/9 !
! .So this article is basically wrong .
Anyways , more researchers still tried to create public exploit for it such as http : //blog.metasploit.com/2009/10/smb2-351-packets-from-trampoline.html [ metasploit.com ] which describes what his way of exploiting this using 351 packets to achieve jump to his code ( remote code execution ) .
So... This article has more than a few points which are not accurate including the " The first windows 7 zero day exploit " title .
Cheers . Zuk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello, This advisory had been published at the 9th of September http://g-laurent.blogspot.com/2009/09/windows-vista7-smb20-negotiate-protocol.html [blogspot.com], about a Kernel Crush made by specially crafted SMB packet to port 445.
This advisory were published in the begining as Denial-Of-Service but soon people found that it was exploitable!
Soon lots of people tried to be the first to create working exploit for the MS09-050 (SMB2).
Till then, Microsoft told that un-till an update will be available you can disable SMB2 and not ports 445/139.
Also, CoreImpact had first published an remote exploit PoC to their members at the 17th of Septemeber.
Which means that an exploit had been found to subscribers at 17/9!
!.So this article is basically wrong.
Anyways, more researchers still tried to create public exploit for it such as http://blog.metasploit.com/2009/10/smb2-351-packets-from-trampoline.html [metasploit.com] which describes what his way of exploiting this using 351 packets to achieve jump to his code (remote code execution).
So... This article has more than a few points which are not accurate including the "The first windows 7 zero day exploit" title.
Cheers.
Zuk</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30117604</id>
	<title>Re:Why are ports 139 and 445 still open?</title>
	<author>Menkhaf</author>
	<datestamp>1258396380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the contrary, why shouldn't port 139 and 445 not remain open? Why do I need to block ports and DISABLE functionality to remain safe?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the contrary , why should n't port 139 and 445 not remain open ?
Why do I need to block ports and DISABLE functionality to remain safe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the contrary, why shouldn't port 139 and 445 not remain open?
Why do I need to block ports and DISABLE functionality to remain safe?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114352</id>
	<title>Sorry guys</title>
	<author>Tibor the Hun</author>
	<datestamp>1258380840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was my idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was my idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was my idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115806</id>
	<title>I thought this was one of them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258388940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was pretty sure this bug made it into the RTM version of Windows 7 because it was reported so late. In fact, unless they have patched it then it is also a Vista, Server 2k8, and Server 2k8 R2 bug.</p><p>http://jpocas.blogspot.com/2009/10/crash-windows-vista-and-later-remotely.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was pretty sure this bug made it into the RTM version of Windows 7 because it was reported so late .
In fact , unless they have patched it then it is also a Vista , Server 2k8 , and Server 2k8 R2 bug.http : //jpocas.blogspot.com/2009/10/crash-windows-vista-and-later-remotely.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was pretty sure this bug made it into the RTM version of Windows 7 because it was reported so late.
In fact, unless they have patched it then it is also a Vista, Server 2k8, and Server 2k8 R2 bug.http://jpocas.blogspot.com/2009/10/crash-windows-vista-and-later-remotely.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114342</id>
	<title>Re:Ball kicking time</title>
	<author>Muad'Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1258380780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That reminds me of my favorite Java n00b null check (I've seen this in the wild):</p><p><tt>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; if (myObject.equals(null))<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That reminds me of my favorite Java n00b null check ( I 've seen this in the wild ) :       if ( myObject.equals ( null ) ) ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That reminds me of my favorite Java n00b null check (I've seen this in the wild):
      if (myObject.equals(null)) ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115978</id>
	<title>What happened to the "default block" policy?</title>
	<author>sgt scrub</author>
	<datestamp>1258389960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>any IT staff worth their pay packet should already have port 139 blocked at the firewall, and probably port 445. too.</p></div><p>I've always believed that a policy of blocking all traffic except what you explicitly trust is the best policy.  Isn't that the policy held most security engineers?  When did it change?  Anyway.  Explicitly trusting UDP 137-139 and TCP 445 traffic to a DMZ is as far as I can go.  IMHO 25, 53, 123, 80, 443, 7070, 1935, 554, and 1194 are the only important ones to allow without explicit source/destinations these days.  I'm talking about traffic originating from the internal network of course.  Inbound traffic should always be restricted to specific destinations or has that changed too?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>any IT staff worth their pay packet should already have port 139 blocked at the firewall , and probably port 445. too.I 've always believed that a policy of blocking all traffic except what you explicitly trust is the best policy .
Is n't that the policy held most security engineers ?
When did it change ?
Anyway. Explicitly trusting UDP 137-139 and TCP 445 traffic to a DMZ is as far as I can go .
IMHO 25 , 53 , 123 , 80 , 443 , 7070 , 1935 , 554 , and 1194 are the only important ones to allow without explicit source/destinations these days .
I 'm talking about traffic originating from the internal network of course .
Inbound traffic should always be restricted to specific destinations or has that changed too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>any IT staff worth their pay packet should already have port 139 blocked at the firewall, and probably port 445. too.I've always believed that a policy of blocking all traffic except what you explicitly trust is the best policy.
Isn't that the policy held most security engineers?
When did it change?
Anyway.  Explicitly trusting UDP 137-139 and TCP 445 traffic to a DMZ is as far as I can go.
IMHO 25, 53, 123, 80, 443, 7070, 1935, 554, and 1194 are the only important ones to allow without explicit source/destinations these days.
I'm talking about traffic originating from the internal network of course.
Inbound traffic should always be restricted to specific destinations or has that changed too?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113814</id>
	<title>Re:Secured by Default</title>
	<author>sam0737</author>
	<datestamp>1258375080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even for Home or Work / Domain profile, the default for "Network discovery" may be on, but "File and printer sharing" is off.</p><p>(I could be wrong because it could be my company's group policy turned it off...someone could cross check)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even for Home or Work / Domain profile , the default for " Network discovery " may be on , but " File and printer sharing " is off .
( I could be wrong because it could be my company 's group policy turned it off...someone could cross check )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even for Home or Work / Domain profile, the default for "Network discovery" may be on, but "File and printer sharing" is off.
(I could be wrong because it could be my company's group policy turned it off...someone could cross check)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30116414</id>
	<title>Re:OMG what if my computer doesnt have a white but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258391940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>use it on the physical button on your case though, not on the button on the screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>use it on the physical button on your case though , not on the button on the screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>use it on the physical button on your case though, not on the button on the screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114278</id>
	<title>Re:It's not as bad as it sounds</title>
	<author>WD</author>
	<datestamp>1258380120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've got the concept right, but you don't need to click on a malicious link in your browser.   Simply visiting a malicious/compromised site in IE is enough.   Or viewing a malicious email.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've got the concept right , but you do n't need to click on a malicious link in your browser .
Simply visiting a malicious/compromised site in IE is enough .
Or viewing a malicious email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've got the concept right, but you don't need to click on a malicious link in your browser.
Simply visiting a malicious/compromised site in IE is enough.
Or viewing a malicious email.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113836</id>
	<title>That will be some code review</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1258375380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Under all conditions" for a piece of complex code is often far from easy. I am still smarting from a problem we had recently (not a vulnerability) where the system was sporadically failing to output messages, a problem never seen before. Unit testing was no good. We spent a week reviewing the code: found a bug, fixed it. Now there were fewer sporadic missed messages, but the number was nonzero. We used a simulator to test under every condition we could think of: no errors. Back on customer site, missed messages. It turned out there was a tiny corner case in an algorithm that was being occasionally triggered by two devices on the network that had a firmware error.<p>I hate Microsoft with the best of them, but give their software engineers credit where it's due: how often have you delivered completely bugfree networking software?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Under all conditions " for a piece of complex code is often far from easy .
I am still smarting from a problem we had recently ( not a vulnerability ) where the system was sporadically failing to output messages , a problem never seen before .
Unit testing was no good .
We spent a week reviewing the code : found a bug , fixed it .
Now there were fewer sporadic missed messages , but the number was nonzero .
We used a simulator to test under every condition we could think of : no errors .
Back on customer site , missed messages .
It turned out there was a tiny corner case in an algorithm that was being occasionally triggered by two devices on the network that had a firmware error.I hate Microsoft with the best of them , but give their software engineers credit where it 's due : how often have you delivered completely bugfree networking software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Under all conditions" for a piece of complex code is often far from easy.
I am still smarting from a problem we had recently (not a vulnerability) where the system was sporadically failing to output messages, a problem never seen before.
Unit testing was no good.
We spent a week reviewing the code: found a bug, fixed it.
Now there were fewer sporadic missed messages, but the number was nonzero.
We used a simulator to test under every condition we could think of: no errors.
Back on customer site, missed messages.
It turned out there was a tiny corner case in an algorithm that was being occasionally triggered by two devices on the network that had a firmware error.I hate Microsoft with the best of them, but give their software engineers credit where it's due: how often have you delivered completely bugfree networking software?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30118686</id>
	<title>Re:pushing the white button?? what does that mean?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258399680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do they make a model covered in rich Corinthian leather?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they make a model covered in rich Corinthian leather ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they make a model covered in rich Corinthian leather?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114008</id>
	<title>Re:I have to ask</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1258377300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Port 139, 445,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. aka Netbios port, aka Virus port.<br><br>This ports are always closed, if they aren't your system is already infected.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Port 139 , 445 , .. aka Netbios port , aka Virus port.This ports are always closed , if they are n't your system is already infected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Port 139, 445, .. aka Netbios port, aka Virus port.This ports are always closed, if they aren't your system is already infected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113394</id>
	<title>OMG what if my computer doesnt have a white button</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258368960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are my options? New computer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are my options ?
New computer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are my options?
New computer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113416</id>
	<title>Why are ports 139 and 445 still open?</title>
	<author>concernedadmin</author>
	<datestamp>1258369320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember once trying to see what it takes to make Windows not have any ports open and it resulted in severely reduced access to just about anything that wasn't local. Why is it that these ports are necessary? Why is NETBIOS necessary?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember once trying to see what it takes to make Windows not have any ports open and it resulted in severely reduced access to just about anything that was n't local .
Why is it that these ports are necessary ?
Why is NETBIOS necessary ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember once trying to see what it takes to make Windows not have any ports open and it resulted in severely reduced access to just about anything that wasn't local.
Why is it that these ports are necessary?
Why is NETBIOS necessary?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113498</id>
	<title>Re:Secured by Default</title>
	<author>Malc</author>
	<datestamp>1258370520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I was wondering which firewall was being referred to: at the network level, or at the machine (i.e. Windows firewall) level?  Would doing at the machine level make it hard for others to access shared folders?  It seems these days that most of the computer issues (viruses, trojans, etc) have come from other machines on the corporate network, so a network level firewall is only have the story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I was wondering which firewall was being referred to : at the network level , or at the machine ( i.e .
Windows firewall ) level ?
Would doing at the machine level make it hard for others to access shared folders ?
It seems these days that most of the computer issues ( viruses , trojans , etc ) have come from other machines on the corporate network , so a network level firewall is only have the story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I was wondering which firewall was being referred to: at the network level, or at the machine (i.e.
Windows firewall) level?
Would doing at the machine level make it hard for others to access shared folders?
It seems these days that most of the computer issues (viruses, trojans, etc) have come from other machines on the corporate network, so a network level firewall is only have the story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114230</id>
	<title>You need to block *outgoing* ports</title>
	<author>WD</author>
	<datestamp>1258379460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article and summary are not clear, but you need to block *outoing* ports 139 and 445 at the firewall to help protect against this issue.   The vulnerability is triggered by the system attempting to make an SMB connection to a malicious server.  This can happen in a number of ways, such as viewing a web page in IE or viewing an email message in Outlook or Outlook Express.</p><p>If your firewall blocks outgoing 139 and 445, then the SMB connection attempt fails.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article and summary are not clear , but you need to block * outoing * ports 139 and 445 at the firewall to help protect against this issue .
The vulnerability is triggered by the system attempting to make an SMB connection to a malicious server .
This can happen in a number of ways , such as viewing a web page in IE or viewing an email message in Outlook or Outlook Express.If your firewall blocks outgoing 139 and 445 , then the SMB connection attempt fails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article and summary are not clear, but you need to block *outoing* ports 139 and 445 at the firewall to help protect against this issue.
The vulnerability is triggered by the system attempting to make an SMB connection to a malicious server.
This can happen in a number of ways, such as viewing a web page in IE or viewing an email message in Outlook or Outlook Express.If your firewall blocks outgoing 139 and 445, then the SMB connection attempt fails.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114166</id>
	<title>Arghh!</title>
	<author>Dreadrik</author>
	<datestamp>1258378800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm on a macbook! All my buttons are white!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm on a macbook !
All my buttons are white !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm on a macbook!
All my buttons are white!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114412</id>
	<title>Allow me to introduce you to Mr. Turing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258381560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
<i>Loops 101: prove that the loop terminates under all conditions</i>
<br><br>
That one's gonna prove to be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting\_problem" title="wikipedia.org">just a little difficult</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Loops 101 : prove that the loop terminates under all conditions That one 's gon na prove to be just a little difficult [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Loops 101: prove that the loop terminates under all conditions

That one's gonna prove to be just a little difficult [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113466</id>
	<title>Re:How is this zero-day?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258370100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my book "zero-day" means that the vulnerability and the first practical exploit were released the same day. "Zero-day" refers to the time the dev team had to correct the bug.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my book " zero-day " means that the vulnerability and the first practical exploit were released the same day .
" Zero-day " refers to the time the dev team had to correct the bug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my book "zero-day" means that the vulnerability and the first practical exploit were released the same day.
"Zero-day" refers to the time the dev team had to correct the bug.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30116288</id>
	<title>yawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258391340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -Bill Gates, 2007</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Nowadays , security guys break the Mac every single day .
Every single day , they come out with a total exploit , your machine can be taken over totally .
I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine .
" -Bill Gates , 2007</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day.
Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally.
I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.
" -Bill Gates, 2007</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113474</id>
	<title>buttons</title>
	<author>nozzo</author>
	<datestamp>1258370220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm OK then, my power button is beige.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm OK then , my power button is beige .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm OK then, my power button is beige.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30121654</id>
	<title>Re:Win 7 Firewall</title>
	<author>iron-kurton</author>
	<datestamp>1258366920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was always a fan of ZoneAlarm because it precisely showed what in/out ports each program was trying to access, and allows you to set individual rules.  Maybe you should consider ZA personal (the free edition), if only for just diagnosing which ports are used by any given program?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was always a fan of ZoneAlarm because it precisely showed what in/out ports each program was trying to access , and allows you to set individual rules .
Maybe you should consider ZA personal ( the free edition ) , if only for just diagnosing which ports are used by any given program ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was always a fan of ZoneAlarm because it precisely showed what in/out ports each program was trying to access, and allows you to set individual rules.
Maybe you should consider ZA personal (the free edition), if only for just diagnosing which ports are used by any given program?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114548</id>
	<title>IT staff?</title>
	<author>Shotgun</author>
	<datestamp>1258382760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Reader xploraiswakco adds, "As important as this the mentioned article is, it should also be pointed out that any IT staff worth their pay packet should already have port 139 blocked at the firewall, and probably port 445. too."</p></div><p>The reader xploraiswakco needs to pull his head out of that dark place and realize that my wife doesn't have an IT staff (I refuse to do Windows).  I would even dare to say that most people don't have an IT staff at home.  It's a stretch,  I know,  But I'm the kind of guy that takes chances like that.</p><p>Does reader xploraiswakco carry an IT staff with him in case he needs to use a wifi hotspot some place?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reader xploraiswakco adds , " As important as this the mentioned article is , it should also be pointed out that any IT staff worth their pay packet should already have port 139 blocked at the firewall , and probably port 445 .
too. " The reader xploraiswakco needs to pull his head out of that dark place and realize that my wife does n't have an IT staff ( I refuse to do Windows ) .
I would even dare to say that most people do n't have an IT staff at home .
It 's a stretch , I know , But I 'm the kind of guy that takes chances like that.Does reader xploraiswakco carry an IT staff with him in case he needs to use a wifi hotspot some place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reader xploraiswakco adds, "As important as this the mentioned article is, it should also be pointed out that any IT staff worth their pay packet should already have port 139 blocked at the firewall, and probably port 445.
too."The reader xploraiswakco needs to pull his head out of that dark place and realize that my wife doesn't have an IT staff (I refuse to do Windows).
I would even dare to say that most people don't have an IT staff at home.
It's a stretch,  I know,  But I'm the kind of guy that takes chances like that.Does reader xploraiswakco carry an IT staff with him in case he needs to use a wifi hotspot some place?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30117790</id>
	<title>Re:IT staff?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258396920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows 7 has these ports blocked by default so your wife doesn't need any network staff. (these ports are only open when you have decided to share files, and then only on private (home and business) networks. This means that only computers on those networks might be able to shutdown her computer. Since the exploit doesn't allow remote execution it won't be in a worm so someone on the network has to consciously perform the exploit. Pretty unlikely on non school networks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 has these ports blocked by default so your wife does n't need any network staff .
( these ports are only open when you have decided to share files , and then only on private ( home and business ) networks .
This means that only computers on those networks might be able to shutdown her computer .
Since the exploit does n't allow remote execution it wo n't be in a worm so someone on the network has to consciously perform the exploit .
Pretty unlikely on non school networks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 has these ports blocked by default so your wife doesn't need any network staff.
(these ports are only open when you have decided to share files, and then only on private (home and business) networks.
This means that only computers on those networks might be able to shutdown her computer.
Since the exploit doesn't allow remote execution it won't be in a worm so someone on the network has to consciously perform the exploit.
Pretty unlikely on non school networks</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113578</id>
	<title>Win 7 Firewall</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258371720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I decided that unlike Vista, I would beta Windows 7 and be ahead of the curve by the time it came out. I've been running it for roughly a year now (midnight snacktime is not condusive to memory) . Overall I am actually quite impressed (gasp! shoot me now). One thing I really like is the granular firewall abilities, which has clearly defined and seperate inbound/outbound rules. I currently have both set to a PIX style ACL type deny all except ports I explicitly state. Now this can be a pain to evaluate a new program to figure out which ports it needs open for proper function, but is definitely something that should be done ona group policy level at the domain, just because you have a supertight internet facing firewall, you still need to prevent LAN and VPN security issues as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I decided that unlike Vista , I would beta Windows 7 and be ahead of the curve by the time it came out .
I 've been running it for roughly a year now ( midnight snacktime is not condusive to memory ) .
Overall I am actually quite impressed ( gasp !
shoot me now ) .
One thing I really like is the granular firewall abilities , which has clearly defined and seperate inbound/outbound rules .
I currently have both set to a PIX style ACL type deny all except ports I explicitly state .
Now this can be a pain to evaluate a new program to figure out which ports it needs open for proper function , but is definitely something that should be done ona group policy level at the domain , just because you have a supertight internet facing firewall , you still need to prevent LAN and VPN security issues as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I decided that unlike Vista, I would beta Windows 7 and be ahead of the curve by the time it came out.
I've been running it for roughly a year now (midnight snacktime is not condusive to memory) .
Overall I am actually quite impressed (gasp!
shoot me now).
One thing I really like is the granular firewall abilities, which has clearly defined and seperate inbound/outbound rules.
I currently have both set to a PIX style ACL type deny all except ports I explicitly state.
Now this can be a pain to evaluate a new program to figure out which ports it needs open for proper function, but is definitely something that should be done ona group policy level at the domain, just because you have a supertight internet facing firewall, you still need to prevent LAN and VPN security issues as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115792</id>
	<title>Re:pushing the white button?? what does that mean?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258388940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>* #3043-P01 Enlarged White Button with face of Steve Ballmer on top. Comes complete with real wood mini hammer and elastic band-powered mini crossbox with safe-tip(TM) arrows (pack of 12 buttons)</p></div><p>Typical Microsoft gotcha. The throwing chairs are sold separately.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* # 3043-P01 Enlarged White Button with face of Steve Ballmer on top .
Comes complete with real wood mini hammer and elastic band-powered mini crossbox with safe-tip ( TM ) arrows ( pack of 12 buttons ) Typical Microsoft gotcha .
The throwing chairs are sold separately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* #3043-P01 Enlarged White Button with face of Steve Ballmer on top.
Comes complete with real wood mini hammer and elastic band-powered mini crossbox with safe-tip(TM) arrows (pack of 12 buttons)Typical Microsoft gotcha.
The throwing chairs are sold separately.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113508</id>
	<title>Re:pushing the white button?? what does that mean?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258370760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only white button here is the buzzer on my front door. But I don't see how ringing the bell will solve that problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only white button here is the buzzer on my front door .
But I do n't see how ringing the bell will solve that problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only white button here is the buzzer on my front door.
But I don't see how ringing the bell will solve that problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113590</id>
	<title>Re:Terrifyingly potent</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1258371900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any bets on whether the reset button will wear out before the 'D' key?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any bets on whether the reset button will wear out before the 'D ' key ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any bets on whether the reset button will wear out before the 'D' key?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114744</id>
	<title>SOL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258384260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"As important as this the mentioned article is, it should also be pointed out that any IT staff worth their pay packet should already have port 139 blocked at the firewall, and probably port 445. too."</i></p><p>That is awesome advice if you \_have\_ an IT staff.  People with Windows 7 at home who don't have one of those are SOL I suppose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" As important as this the mentioned article is , it should also be pointed out that any IT staff worth their pay packet should already have port 139 blocked at the firewall , and probably port 445 .
too. " That is awesome advice if you \ _have \ _ an IT staff .
People with Windows 7 at home who do n't have one of those are SOL I suppose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As important as this the mentioned article is, it should also be pointed out that any IT staff worth their pay packet should already have port 139 blocked at the firewall, and probably port 445.
too."That is awesome advice if you \_have\_ an IT staff.
People with Windows 7 at home who don't have one of those are SOL I suppose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113694</id>
	<title>"Pay packet?"</title>
	<author>Shag</author>
	<datestamp>1258373460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mine turned out to be maliciously crafted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mine turned out to be maliciously crafted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mine turned out to be maliciously crafted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113530</id>
	<title>Re:How is this zero-day?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258371000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'When <i>I</i> use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'When I use a word, ' Humpty Dumpty said , in rather a scornful tone , 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.
'
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30120192</id>
	<title>Re:OMG what if my computer doesnt have a white but</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1258404240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What are my options? New computer?</i></p><p>Clearly if it hasn't got a white button and it crashes, it is beyond repair and you will have to buy a new one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are my options ?
New computer ? Clearly if it has n't got a white button and it crashes , it is beyond repair and you will have to buy a new one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are my options?
New computer?Clearly if it hasn't got a white button and it crashes, it is beyond repair and you will have to buy a new one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114394</id>
	<title>Re:It is 0-day, i think</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1258381260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay, you <b>believe</b> that a one-week exploit is the same as a zero-day exploit.  No.  If it's zero-day, then the vendor has no chance to fix it or offer a workaround.  Seven-day, well everything could have been fixed by now!  I think you need a different word for this concept, because "zero-day" means <i>how many days</i>?  This is a pop quiz.  Sorry that it has math in it, I know that's hard for a lot of people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , you believe that a one-week exploit is the same as a zero-day exploit .
No. If it 's zero-day , then the vendor has no chance to fix it or offer a workaround .
Seven-day , well everything could have been fixed by now !
I think you need a different word for this concept , because " zero-day " means how many days ?
This is a pop quiz .
Sorry that it has math in it , I know that 's hard for a lot of people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, you believe that a one-week exploit is the same as a zero-day exploit.
No.  If it's zero-day, then the vendor has no chance to fix it or offer a workaround.
Seven-day, well everything could have been fixed by now!
I think you need a different word for this concept, because "zero-day" means how many days?
This is a pop quiz.
Sorry that it has math in it, I know that's hard for a lot of people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30118054</id>
	<title>Re:Why are ports 139 and 445 still open?</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1258397700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those are the ports file sharing goes over.  If you don't want them open, disable file-sharing or disable the exceptions for those port in the Windows firewall.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those are the ports file sharing goes over .
If you do n't want them open , disable file-sharing or disable the exceptions for those port in the Windows firewall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those are the ports file sharing goes over.
If you don't want them open, disable file-sharing or disable the exceptions for those port in the Windows firewall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113684</id>
	<title>interesting,</title>
	<author>nimbius</author>
	<datestamp>1258373220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didnt know we were now officially referring to the power button as "the white button"<br> <br>

or maybe everyone has a white button and i dont?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I didnt know we were now officially referring to the power button as " the white button " or maybe everyone has a white button and i dont ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didnt know we were now officially referring to the power button as "the white button" 

or maybe everyone has a white button and i dont?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115906</id>
	<title>Re:pushing the white button?? what does that mean?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258389600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;GO NORTH</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; GO NORTH</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;GO NORTH</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113450</id>
	<title>pushing the white button??  what does that mean?</title>
	<author>DigitalReverend</author>
	<datestamp>1258369920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary states <i>"A maliciously crafted URI could hard-crash affected machines beyond any remedy besides pushing the white button."</i> <br> <br>

I checked all the Windows machines here.  None of them have a white button on them anywhere.  What does this mean? Does the poster just mean powering the machine off and then on again?<br> <br>

Too many times on Slashdot, when people should be informative, they obfuscate the information it in failed attempts at being clever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary states " A maliciously crafted URI could hard-crash affected machines beyond any remedy besides pushing the white button .
" I checked all the Windows machines here .
None of them have a white button on them anywhere .
What does this mean ?
Does the poster just mean powering the machine off and then on again ?
Too many times on Slashdot , when people should be informative , they obfuscate the information it in failed attempts at being clever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary states "A maliciously crafted URI could hard-crash affected machines beyond any remedy besides pushing the white button.
"  

I checked all the Windows machines here.
None of them have a white button on them anywhere.
What does this mean?
Does the poster just mean powering the machine off and then on again?
Too many times on Slashdot, when people should be informative, they obfuscate the information it in failed attempts at being clever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113428</id>
	<title>Well researched article, that...</title>
	<author>EMN13</author>
	<datestamp>1258369560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article:<br>
&nbsp; "Instead, the company suggested users block TCP ports 139 and 445 at the firewall. Doing so, however, would disable browsers as well as a host of critical services, including network file-sharing and IT group policies."</p><p>Good to know that blocking ports 139 and 445 will block browsers, we wouldn't want people actually doing that, after all!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article :   " Instead , the company suggested users block TCP ports 139 and 445 at the firewall .
Doing so , however , would disable browsers as well as a host of critical services , including network file-sharing and IT group policies .
" Good to know that blocking ports 139 and 445 will block browsers , we would n't want people actually doing that , after all !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:
  "Instead, the company suggested users block TCP ports 139 and 445 at the firewall.
Doing so, however, would disable browsers as well as a host of critical services, including network file-sharing and IT group policies.
"Good to know that blocking ports 139 and 445 will block browsers, we wouldn't want people actually doing that, after all!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113796</id>
	<title>Re:Ball kicking time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258375020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, that's the difference between a hacker and a software engineer right there.  If you don't take the time to fix it early, you'll just have to fix it later.</p></div><p>The Microsoft approach is to collect the money and get their customers to agree that everything that goes wrong is their fault. It's at least as good protection for them as writing decent code and many times cheaper.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , that 's the difference between a hacker and a software engineer right there .
If you do n't take the time to fix it early , you 'll just have to fix it later.The Microsoft approach is to collect the money and get their customers to agree that everything that goes wrong is their fault .
It 's at least as good protection for them as writing decent code and many times cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, that's the difference between a hacker and a software engineer right there.
If you don't take the time to fix it early, you'll just have to fix it later.The Microsoft approach is to collect the money and get their customers to agree that everything that goes wrong is their fault.
It's at least as good protection for them as writing decent code and many times cheaper.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114752</id>
	<title>Re:pushing the white button?? what does that mean?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258384320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your catalogue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your catalogue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your catalogue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115058</id>
	<title>Re:Ball kicking time</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1258385940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Don't they do code reviews at Microsoft?</i></p><p>Yes they do.</p><p><i>Loops 101: prove that the loop terminates under all conditions, even and especially when passed garbage.</i></p><p>"Terminates under all conditions" is a little difficult to prove in any non-trivial situation.</p><p><i>Seriously, that's the difference between a hacker and a software engineer right there.</i></p><p>The former bitches and moans on Slashdot, and Microsoft hires the latter?</p><p><i>If you don't take the time to fix it early, you'll just have to fix it later.</i></p><p>Maybe you should send Microsoft your perfect coding technique that won't possibly have exploits. Since you seem to have all the secrets of software nailed down. I'm sure Microsoft would love to see it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't they do code reviews at Microsoft ? Yes they do.Loops 101 : prove that the loop terminates under all conditions , even and especially when passed garbage .
" Terminates under all conditions " is a little difficult to prove in any non-trivial situation.Seriously , that 's the difference between a hacker and a software engineer right there.The former bitches and moans on Slashdot , and Microsoft hires the latter ? If you do n't take the time to fix it early , you 'll just have to fix it later.Maybe you should send Microsoft your perfect coding technique that wo n't possibly have exploits .
Since you seem to have all the secrets of software nailed down .
I 'm sure Microsoft would love to see it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't they do code reviews at Microsoft?Yes they do.Loops 101: prove that the loop terminates under all conditions, even and especially when passed garbage.
"Terminates under all conditions" is a little difficult to prove in any non-trivial situation.Seriously, that's the difference between a hacker and a software engineer right there.The former bitches and moans on Slashdot, and Microsoft hires the latter?If you don't take the time to fix it early, you'll just have to fix it later.Maybe you should send Microsoft your perfect coding technique that won't possibly have exploits.
Since you seem to have all the secrets of software nailed down.
I'm sure Microsoft would love to see it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30125260</id>
	<title>Re:Win 7 Firewall</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258387020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Agnitum's Outpost firewall still beats everything out there by far. It has too many security features that are just completely missing solutions for giant holes elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Agnitum 's Outpost firewall still beats everything out there by far .
It has too many security features that are just completely missing solutions for giant holes elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Agnitum's Outpost firewall still beats everything out there by far.
It has too many security features that are just completely missing solutions for giant holes elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30120796</id>
	<title>Re:Yet again ...</title>
	<author>TheThiefMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1258363260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The exploit is for an OUTBOUND connection via a malicious link in an email etc. If it was an inbound connection then it really would come under the "yawn" category and be blocked by everyone's firewalls. Very few "home" grade routers / firewalls will block outgoing connections at all, let alone by default, because that is such a pain to manage with the plethora of online games about, all using different outgoing ports.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The exploit is for an OUTBOUND connection via a malicious link in an email etc .
If it was an inbound connection then it really would come under the " yawn " category and be blocked by everyone 's firewalls .
Very few " home " grade routers / firewalls will block outgoing connections at all , let alone by default , because that is such a pain to manage with the plethora of online games about , all using different outgoing ports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The exploit is for an OUTBOUND connection via a malicious link in an email etc.
If it was an inbound connection then it really would come under the "yawn" category and be blocked by everyone's firewalls.
Very few "home" grade routers / firewalls will block outgoing connections at all, let alone by default, because that is such a pain to manage with the plethora of online games about, all using different outgoing ports.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30118296</id>
	<title>Re:How is this zero-day?</title>
	<author>http</author>
	<datestamp>1258398420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Security pros aren't using your book.  Maybe you should lower the price.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Security pros are n't using your book .
Maybe you should lower the price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security pros aren't using your book.
Maybe you should lower the price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115870</id>
	<title>Re:You need to block *outgoing* ports</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258389480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blocking outgoing ports can't possibly work. What's to prevent the exploit from sending the other packets of the handshake anyway, as if it had received the packets blocked by the firewall?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blocking outgoing ports ca n't possibly work .
What 's to prevent the exploit from sending the other packets of the handshake anyway , as if it had received the packets blocked by the firewall ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blocking outgoing ports can't possibly work.
What's to prevent the exploit from sending the other packets of the handshake anyway, as if it had received the packets blocked by the firewall?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113656</id>
	<title>Re:Ball kicking time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258372860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You find stupid errors in every non-trivial program. I still can't conceive the one Linux had this year.</p><p>Pointers 101: Don't check for NULL <em>after</em> you already dereferenced the pointer. That is like putting the condom on after the sex.</p><p>And unlike the termination of a loop that kind of error could be found with static analysis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You find stupid errors in every non-trivial program .
I still ca n't conceive the one Linux had this year.Pointers 101 : Do n't check for NULL after you already dereferenced the pointer .
That is like putting the condom on after the sex.And unlike the termination of a loop that kind of error could be found with static analysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You find stupid errors in every non-trivial program.
I still can't conceive the one Linux had this year.Pointers 101: Don't check for NULL after you already dereferenced the pointer.
That is like putting the condom on after the sex.And unlike the termination of a loop that kind of error could be found with static analysis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113692</id>
	<title>Re:pushing the white button?? what does that mean?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258373340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>#3043-001 USB White Button Kit........34.99 + Shipping</p><p>Ideal for computers not shipped by the manufacturer with a White Button pre-installed.</p><p>A White Button is essential for all Windows Users. Upon a system failure, Denial of Service attack or crash, pressing the White Button releases a scientifically-formulated, airborne scent of soothing essential oil fragrances, including: Verbena, Sweet Orange, Roman Camomile and Ylang Ylag.</p><p>At the same time, one of a number of pre-programmed actions are triggered while you listen to a random selection of 10 relaxing 'mood music' tracks.</p><p>Basic actions include:</p><p>1) Reboot<br>2) Call my IT Support department<br>3) Call the manufacturer's support department and cancel my evening dinner arrangements<br>4) Reinstall current OS<br>5) Reinstall current OS after backing up all user data<br>6) Wipe and install CentOS<br>7) Wipe and install Ubuntu<br>8) Order me a Mac<br>9) Order me a Big Mac, fries and a Coke</p><p>Secondary actions can also be triggered from:</p><p>A) Call Microsoft HQ every 'x' minutes and shout 'Fuck it' down the line.<br>B) Post my CV to Linux-only job sites<br>C) Rub my shoulders (Requires optional add-on #RS01)<br>D) Dial local suicide help line</p><p>A deluxe version of this item is available (#3043-002, 139.99 + Shipping). This model includes an external 10" LCD panel that can display random pages from a number of Web sites (slashdot.org, fark.com, silicon.com,  cloudappreciationsociety.org and todaysbigfail.com)</p><p>Extras and consumables:</p><p>* #3043-S01 Replacement aromatherapy scent cartridge - pack of 12<br>* #3043-S02 Replacement mustard gas scent cartridge  sold singly, no returns<br>* #3043-M01 Extended play music ROM - an extra 4 hours of music (for Dell Support customers)<br>* #3043-P01 Enlarged White Button with face of Steve Ballmer on top. Comes complete with real wood mini hammer and elastic band-powered mini crossbox with safe-tip(TM) arrows (pack of 12 buttons)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext># 3043-001 USB White Button Kit........34.99 + ShippingIdeal for computers not shipped by the manufacturer with a White Button pre-installed.A White Button is essential for all Windows Users .
Upon a system failure , Denial of Service attack or crash , pressing the White Button releases a scientifically-formulated , airborne scent of soothing essential oil fragrances , including : Verbena , Sweet Orange , Roman Camomile and Ylang Ylag.At the same time , one of a number of pre-programmed actions are triggered while you listen to a random selection of 10 relaxing 'mood music ' tracks.Basic actions include : 1 ) Reboot2 ) Call my IT Support department3 ) Call the manufacturer 's support department and cancel my evening dinner arrangements4 ) Reinstall current OS5 ) Reinstall current OS after backing up all user data6 ) Wipe and install CentOS7 ) Wipe and install Ubuntu8 ) Order me a Mac9 ) Order me a Big Mac , fries and a CokeSecondary actions can also be triggered from : A ) Call Microsoft HQ every 'x ' minutes and shout 'Fuck it ' down the line.B ) Post my CV to Linux-only job sitesC ) Rub my shoulders ( Requires optional add-on # RS01 ) D ) Dial local suicide help lineA deluxe version of this item is available ( # 3043-002 , 139.99 + Shipping ) .
This model includes an external 10 " LCD panel that can display random pages from a number of Web sites ( slashdot.org , fark.com , silicon.com , cloudappreciationsociety.org and todaysbigfail.com ) Extras and consumables : * # 3043-S01 Replacement aromatherapy scent cartridge - pack of 12 * # 3043-S02 Replacement mustard gas scent cartridge sold singly , no returns * # 3043-M01 Extended play music ROM - an extra 4 hours of music ( for Dell Support customers ) * # 3043-P01 Enlarged White Button with face of Steve Ballmer on top .
Comes complete with real wood mini hammer and elastic band-powered mini crossbox with safe-tip ( TM ) arrows ( pack of 12 buttons )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#3043-001 USB White Button Kit........34.99 + ShippingIdeal for computers not shipped by the manufacturer with a White Button pre-installed.A White Button is essential for all Windows Users.
Upon a system failure, Denial of Service attack or crash, pressing the White Button releases a scientifically-formulated, airborne scent of soothing essential oil fragrances, including: Verbena, Sweet Orange, Roman Camomile and Ylang Ylag.At the same time, one of a number of pre-programmed actions are triggered while you listen to a random selection of 10 relaxing 'mood music' tracks.Basic actions include:1) Reboot2) Call my IT Support department3) Call the manufacturer's support department and cancel my evening dinner arrangements4) Reinstall current OS5) Reinstall current OS after backing up all user data6) Wipe and install CentOS7) Wipe and install Ubuntu8) Order me a Mac9) Order me a Big Mac, fries and a CokeSecondary actions can also be triggered from:A) Call Microsoft HQ every 'x' minutes and shout 'Fuck it' down the line.B) Post my CV to Linux-only job sitesC) Rub my shoulders (Requires optional add-on #RS01)D) Dial local suicide help lineA deluxe version of this item is available (#3043-002, 139.99 + Shipping).
This model includes an external 10" LCD panel that can display random pages from a number of Web sites (slashdot.org, fark.com, silicon.com,  cloudappreciationsociety.org and todaysbigfail.com)Extras and consumables:* #3043-S01 Replacement aromatherapy scent cartridge - pack of 12* #3043-S02 Replacement mustard gas scent cartridge  sold singly, no returns* #3043-M01 Extended play music ROM - an extra 4 hours of music (for Dell Support customers)* #3043-P01 Enlarged White Button with face of Steve Ballmer on top.
Comes complete with real wood mini hammer and elastic band-powered mini crossbox with safe-tip(TM) arrows (pack of 12 buttons)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114466</id>
	<title>Re:on or before the vendor knows about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258382040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uh, dude?  Infallible Wikipedia?  Surely you can't be serious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , dude ?
Infallible Wikipedia ?
Surely you ca n't be serious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, dude?
Infallible Wikipedia?
Surely you can't be serious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114302</id>
	<title>Re:How is this zero-day?</title>
	<author>randomsearch</author>
	<datestamp>1258380360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great quote.</p><p>Can we apply this to "cloud" next?  Having seen someone try to explain the difference between "cloud", "grid" and "cluster" the other day I think Inigo Montoya would agree.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great quote.Can we apply this to " cloud " next ?
Having seen someone try to explain the difference between " cloud " , " grid " and " cluster " the other day I think Inigo Montoya would agree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great quote.Can we apply this to "cloud" next?
Having seen someone try to explain the difference between "cloud", "grid" and "cluster" the other day I think Inigo Montoya would agree.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30125204</id>
	<title>16 years enough to test web browsers/environments?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258386540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See, that is the thing about the web that kind of gets to me. Nobody looks methodically at everywhere certain things *can* be used.  They only look at where they "should" be used.<br>Here's a shortened list but the thing to really do is just RTFM HTTP &amp; HTML(etc.) specs., for starters, at the grammar/syntax level not "here is how you" level:<br>- URLs:  any URL can be stuck anywhere - IMG tag, A tag, object/embed,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... frames, Ajax call, redirect, etc.; and that means any protocol schem<br>- MIMETypes:  HTTP headers, etc.<br>- Content:  server can send back anything and call it any mime type</p><p>And multipart MIME responses are just crazy.  Very cautiously look at (as TEXT not HTML or email!!) the contents of a spammed HTML email that contains viruses, and you just want to claw your eyes out afterward  Whoever writes some of those really "gets" what the problem is.  Unfortunately, they kind of take advantage....<br>Sometimes web browsers and their interface to the environment seems like the *least* tested part of the computer.</p><p>A lot of what is wrong with the web in terms of safety is symptomatic of being non-systematic.<br>Lots of people have been using the web since 1993 when Mosaic came out but here we are 16 years later still waiting for browsers (and systems they run on, and apps configured as external viewers) to be gone over with a fine tooth comb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , that is the thing about the web that kind of gets to me .
Nobody looks methodically at everywhere certain things * can * be used .
They only look at where they " should " be used.Here 's a shortened list but the thing to really do is just RTFM HTTP &amp; HTML ( etc .
) specs. , for starters , at the grammar/syntax level not " here is how you " level : - URLs : any URL can be stuck anywhere - IMG tag , A tag , object/embed , ... frames , Ajax call , redirect , etc .
; and that means any protocol schem- MIMETypes : HTTP headers , etc.- Content : server can send back anything and call it any mime typeAnd multipart MIME responses are just crazy .
Very cautiously look at ( as TEXT not HTML or email ! !
) the contents of a spammed HTML email that contains viruses , and you just want to claw your eyes out afterward Whoever writes some of those really " gets " what the problem is .
Unfortunately , they kind of take advantage....Sometimes web browsers and their interface to the environment seems like the * least * tested part of the computer.A lot of what is wrong with the web in terms of safety is symptomatic of being non-systematic.Lots of people have been using the web since 1993 when Mosaic came out but here we are 16 years later still waiting for browsers ( and systems they run on , and apps configured as external viewers ) to be gone over with a fine tooth comb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, that is the thing about the web that kind of gets to me.
Nobody looks methodically at everywhere certain things *can* be used.
They only look at where they "should" be used.Here's a shortened list but the thing to really do is just RTFM HTTP &amp; HTML(etc.
) specs., for starters, at the grammar/syntax level not "here is how you" level:- URLs:  any URL can be stuck anywhere - IMG tag, A tag, object/embed, ... frames, Ajax call, redirect, etc.
; and that means any protocol schem- MIMETypes:  HTTP headers, etc.- Content:  server can send back anything and call it any mime typeAnd multipart MIME responses are just crazy.
Very cautiously look at (as TEXT not HTML or email!!
) the contents of a spammed HTML email that contains viruses, and you just want to claw your eyes out afterward  Whoever writes some of those really "gets" what the problem is.
Unfortunately, they kind of take advantage....Sometimes web browsers and their interface to the environment seems like the *least* tested part of the computer.A lot of what is wrong with the web in terms of safety is symptomatic of being non-systematic.Lots of people have been using the web since 1993 when Mosaic came out but here we are 16 years later still waiting for browsers (and systems they run on, and apps configured as external viewers) to be gone over with a fine tooth comb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30116290</id>
	<title>Gotta Be Said</title>
	<author>macs4all</author>
	<datestamp>1258391340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"It won't have any problems my previous OS had!" -- 'PC guy' on latest 'Get a Mac' ad</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It wo n't have any problems my previous OS had !
" -- 'PC guy ' on latest 'Get a Mac ' ad</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It won't have any problems my previous OS had!
" -- 'PC guy' on latest 'Get a Mac' ad</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114802</id>
	<title>Re:How is this zero-day?</title>
	<author>DMiax</author>
	<datestamp>1258384680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Better than the OP's definition, but not correct. Zero-day means that at the time of the exploit no machine can have the fix already installed. They are different from the reverse-engineered bugs which are ineffective against properly updated software (i.e. when the admin does not suck).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Better than the OP 's definition , but not correct .
Zero-day means that at the time of the exploit no machine can have the fix already installed .
They are different from the reverse-engineered bugs which are ineffective against properly updated software ( i.e .
when the admin does not suck ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better than the OP's definition, but not correct.
Zero-day means that at the time of the exploit no machine can have the fix already installed.
They are different from the reverse-engineered bugs which are ineffective against properly updated software (i.e.
when the admin does not suck).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30119824</id>
	<title>Re:Yet again ...</title>
	<author>YankDownUnder</author>
	<datestamp>1258403040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Micro$soft, a company worth in excess of $55 billion dollars US, can't possibly be expected to fix something as complex as Micro$oft Windows (insert your version here). C'mon! They've got to eat, party, buy politicians and Texan football team owners...you really think that they'd spend MONEY on fixing something "once and for all"? We must be kind to them, and expect that A COMPANY THAT IS WORTH IN EXCESS OF $55 BILLION DOLLARS US can't afford such a thing as shelling out hard earned (stolen/conned/extorted) money to teams of offshored software engineers to fix such MYSTERIOUS things! Bribery and paying out for lobbyists and greasing palms for copyrights and patents is IMPORTANT ya know...so give them a break! Maybe, MAYBE, someone should just write them a nice little note explaining how they can fix this issue, or write the resolution out for them (hardcopy or in software format) so that they don't have to worry so much and fret so much! Ya know, give them a helping hand, eh? (Sorry, my meds ain't kicked in yet).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Micro $ soft , a company worth in excess of $ 55 billion dollars US , ca n't possibly be expected to fix something as complex as Micro $ oft Windows ( insert your version here ) .
C'mon ! They 've got to eat , party , buy politicians and Texan football team owners...you really think that they 'd spend MONEY on fixing something " once and for all " ?
We must be kind to them , and expect that A COMPANY THAT IS WORTH IN EXCESS OF $ 55 BILLION DOLLARS US ca n't afford such a thing as shelling out hard earned ( stolen/conned/extorted ) money to teams of offshored software engineers to fix such MYSTERIOUS things !
Bribery and paying out for lobbyists and greasing palms for copyrights and patents is IMPORTANT ya know...so give them a break !
Maybe , MAYBE , someone should just write them a nice little note explaining how they can fix this issue , or write the resolution out for them ( hardcopy or in software format ) so that they do n't have to worry so much and fret so much !
Ya know , give them a helping hand , eh ?
( Sorry , my meds ai n't kicked in yet ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Micro$soft, a company worth in excess of $55 billion dollars US, can't possibly be expected to fix something as complex as Micro$oft Windows (insert your version here).
C'mon! They've got to eat, party, buy politicians and Texan football team owners...you really think that they'd spend MONEY on fixing something "once and for all"?
We must be kind to them, and expect that A COMPANY THAT IS WORTH IN EXCESS OF $55 BILLION DOLLARS US can't afford such a thing as shelling out hard earned (stolen/conned/extorted) money to teams of offshored software engineers to fix such MYSTERIOUS things!
Bribery and paying out for lobbyists and greasing palms for copyrights and patents is IMPORTANT ya know...so give them a break!
Maybe, MAYBE, someone should just write them a nice little note explaining how they can fix this issue, or write the resolution out for them (hardcopy or in software format) so that they don't have to worry so much and fret so much!
Ya know, give them a helping hand, eh?
(Sorry, my meds ain't kicked in yet).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113470</id>
	<title>I have to ask</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258370160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my ignorance, I have to ask:  What's so special about 139 and 445?  What do they do normally, and why would blocking them help?  No, I didn't RTFA.  I'm too tired for this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my ignorance , I have to ask : What 's so special about 139 and 445 ?
What do they do normally , and why would blocking them help ?
No , I did n't RTFA .
I 'm too tired for this : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my ignorance, I have to ask:  What's so special about 139 and 445?
What do they do normally, and why would blocking them help?
No, I didn't RTFA.
I'm too tired for this :P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30122454</id>
	<title>Disable the service which listens on this port</title>
	<author>TwineLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1258369380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"sc stop server"<br>
"sc config start=disabled server"<p>
The 'server' service is a Win32 service which provides sharing of files, printers, and CPU registers on port 139.  The best solution, beyond firewalling the port in question, is to disable this service unless it is being used.  The service itself consumes resources even when not in use, requires a small amount of time during boot-up, etc.
</p><p>
Most home users do not use windows file-sharing or printer-sharing because they are justifiably concerned with the security risks.  These uses should disable the "server" service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" sc stop server " " sc config start = disabled server " The 'server ' service is a Win32 service which provides sharing of files , printers , and CPU registers on port 139 .
The best solution , beyond firewalling the port in question , is to disable this service unless it is being used .
The service itself consumes resources even when not in use , requires a small amount of time during boot-up , etc .
Most home users do not use windows file-sharing or printer-sharing because they are justifiably concerned with the security risks .
These uses should disable the " server " service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"sc stop server"
"sc config start=disabled server"
The 'server' service is a Win32 service which provides sharing of files, printers, and CPU registers on port 139.
The best solution, beyond firewalling the port in question, is to disable this service unless it is being used.
The service itself consumes resources even when not in use, requires a small amount of time during boot-up, etc.
Most home users do not use windows file-sharing or printer-sharing because they are justifiably concerned with the security risks.
These uses should disable the "server" service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114060</id>
	<title>Re:Secured by Default</title>
	<author>solevita</author>
	<datestamp>1258377720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>so this would have to be an internal DOS attack realistically.</p></div><p>Just the thing you need if you don't like your IT staff and they've just rolled out a Windows Server 2008 box...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>so this would have to be an internal DOS attack realistically.Just the thing you need if you do n't like your IT staff and they 've just rolled out a Windows Server 2008 box.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so this would have to be an internal DOS attack realistically.Just the thing you need if you don't like your IT staff and they've just rolled out a Windows Server 2008 box...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115234</id>
	<title>Re:on or before the vendor knows about it</title>
	<author>trapnest</author>
	<datestamp>1258386600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whoosh</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoosh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoosh</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113574</id>
	<title>My computer doesn't have a white button</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258371660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... they're all black<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you insensitive clod.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... they 're all black ... you insensitive clod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... they're all black ... you insensitive clod.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30145586</id>
	<title>Re:How is this zero-day?</title>
	<author>dave87656</author>
	<datestamp>1257098880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Zero-day" refers to the time the dev team had to correct the bug.</p></div><p>Actually, since most hackers with ill intentions don't announce a vulnerability they've found, who knows how long the vulnerability has existed and how long it's been abused? There is plenty of malware which virus scanners don't even recognize but that doesn't mean they don't attack your system. All of our email boxes (Windows boxes connected to the internet) were infected by a virus which was first discovered nine-months later. At that time it was recognized that it had been around for a while.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Zero-day " refers to the time the dev team had to correct the bug.Actually , since most hackers with ill intentions do n't announce a vulnerability they 've found , who knows how long the vulnerability has existed and how long it 's been abused ?
There is plenty of malware which virus scanners do n't even recognize but that does n't mean they do n't attack your system .
All of our email boxes ( Windows boxes connected to the internet ) were infected by a virus which was first discovered nine-months later .
At that time it was recognized that it had been around for a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Zero-day" refers to the time the dev team had to correct the bug.Actually, since most hackers with ill intentions don't announce a vulnerability they've found, who knows how long the vulnerability has existed and how long it's been abused?
There is plenty of malware which virus scanners don't even recognize but that doesn't mean they don't attack your system.
All of our email boxes (Windows boxes connected to the internet) were infected by a virus which was first discovered nine-months later.
At that time it was recognized that it had been around for a while.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114728</id>
	<title>Re:pushing the white button?? what does that mean?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258384140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>kdawson is colorblind, man.  Don't be such a dick.  You and I both know he meant "red button," but he doesn't actually know the difference.  There's no reason to get all passive-aggressive Slashdot literalist on him.</p><p>Not only is the guy the worst, most inattentive and ill-informed editor on staff but he's visually disabled!  Cut the guy a break!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>kdawson is colorblind , man .
Do n't be such a dick .
You and I both know he meant " red button , " but he does n't actually know the difference .
There 's no reason to get all passive-aggressive Slashdot literalist on him.Not only is the guy the worst , most inattentive and ill-informed editor on staff but he 's visually disabled !
Cut the guy a break !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kdawson is colorblind, man.
Don't be such a dick.
You and I both know he meant "red button," but he doesn't actually know the difference.
There's no reason to get all passive-aggressive Slashdot literalist on him.Not only is the guy the worst, most inattentive and ill-informed editor on staff but he's visually disabled!
Cut the guy a break!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30117902</id>
	<title>Re:Ball kicking time</title>
	<author>Skuld-Chan</author>
	<datestamp>1258397220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously - every software company I've ever worked at (3 so far - and one of them was big enough that every one of you has heard of them) every single exploit we ever found was reviewed - often by multiple people.</p><p>Who would have thought the human factor would play such a large role in software development?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously - every software company I 've ever worked at ( 3 so far - and one of them was big enough that every one of you has heard of them ) every single exploit we ever found was reviewed - often by multiple people.Who would have thought the human factor would play such a large role in software development ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously - every software company I've ever worked at (3 so far - and one of them was big enough that every one of you has heard of them) every single exploit we ever found was reviewed - often by multiple people.Who would have thought the human factor would play such a large role in software development?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113654</id>
	<title>UN; billion+ starving</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258372860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nothing to do with us, of course?</p><p>starving? one would think we could do better, as there are really no shortages of anything...yet, perhaps besides compassion/responsibility.</p><p>who is to tell those starving kids that they've made their own mess, &amp; will have to 'get busy' or else they'll starve to death, which sometimes takes many months due to the occasional discovery of something digestible?</p><p>as is stated in ALL of the manuals; the innocents will be protected. if not by us,.....?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nothing to do with us , of course ? starving ?
one would think we could do better , as there are really no shortages of anything...yet , perhaps besides compassion/responsibility.who is to tell those starving kids that they 've made their own mess , &amp; will have to 'get busy ' or else they 'll starve to death , which sometimes takes many months due to the occasional discovery of something digestible ? as is stated in ALL of the manuals ; the innocents will be protected .
if not by us,..... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nothing to do with us, of course?starving?
one would think we could do better, as there are really no shortages of anything...yet, perhaps besides compassion/responsibility.who is to tell those starving kids that they've made their own mess, &amp; will have to 'get busy' or else they'll starve to death, which sometimes takes many months due to the occasional discovery of something digestible?as is stated in ALL of the manuals; the innocents will be protected.
if not by us,.....?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113718</id>
	<title>I have a dream ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258373880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that one day all (buttons) will be just by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that one day all ( buttons ) will be just by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that one day all (buttons) will be just by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30124644</id>
	<title>Re:Yet again ...</title>
	<author>mr exploiter</author>
	<datestamp>1258381140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right... because if one thing we learned from vista is that users like to be asked before the operating systems do every little thing. In other news UAC is great!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right... because if one thing we learned from vista is that users like to be asked before the operating systems do every little thing .
In other news UAC is great !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right... because if one thing we learned from vista is that users like to be asked before the operating systems do every little thing.
In other news UAC is great!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114208</id>
	<title>Yes, any admin...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258379280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but what about home users?</p><p>This reminds me of the days of "winnuke" and blue screening IRC users back in the dialup days.  Port 139 is probably already blocked at the firewall on even most of the most trivial configurations.  But attack vectors aren't always direct.  At times attacks are relayed through a malware infected machine giving a remote attacker local, "behind the router/firewall" access to all the other machines on the network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but what about home users ? This reminds me of the days of " winnuke " and blue screening IRC users back in the dialup days .
Port 139 is probably already blocked at the firewall on even most of the most trivial configurations .
But attack vectors are n't always direct .
At times attacks are relayed through a malware infected machine giving a remote attacker local , " behind the router/firewall " access to all the other machines on the network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but what about home users?This reminds me of the days of "winnuke" and blue screening IRC users back in the dialup days.
Port 139 is probably already blocked at the firewall on even most of the most trivial configurations.
But attack vectors aren't always direct.
At times attacks are relayed through a malware infected machine giving a remote attacker local, "behind the router/firewall" access to all the other machines on the network.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114236</id>
	<title>Re:Win 7 Firewall</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1258379580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Overall I am actually quite impressed (gasp! shoot me now).</p></div><p>I think you're in good company. I just recently saw a poll on a site I visit with about 3600 votes on what OS they were running:</p><p>Win 7: 47\%<br>XP: 23\%<br>Vista: 11\%<br>Mac: 10\%<br>Linux: 8\%</p><p>Yeah I know not exactly representative... but at least among Windows users I'd say early adopters, and clearly Windows 7 is a hit. It's completely killed Vista, and even those coming from XP seem happy. I think you can push the "Year of the Linux desktop" back another few years, I'm happy on Linux but any window Vista gave it has closed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Overall I am actually quite impressed ( gasp !
shoot me now ) .I think you 're in good company .
I just recently saw a poll on a site I visit with about 3600 votes on what OS they were running : Win 7 : 47 \ % XP : 23 \ % Vista : 11 \ % Mac : 10 \ % Linux : 8 \ % Yeah I know not exactly representative... but at least among Windows users I 'd say early adopters , and clearly Windows 7 is a hit .
It 's completely killed Vista , and even those coming from XP seem happy .
I think you can push the " Year of the Linux desktop " back another few years , I 'm happy on Linux but any window Vista gave it has closed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Overall I am actually quite impressed (gasp!
shoot me now).I think you're in good company.
I just recently saw a poll on a site I visit with about 3600 votes on what OS they were running:Win 7: 47\%XP: 23\%Vista: 11\%Mac: 10\%Linux: 8\%Yeah I know not exactly representative... but at least among Windows users I'd say early adopters, and clearly Windows 7 is a hit.
It's completely killed Vista, and even those coming from XP seem happy.
I think you can push the "Year of the Linux desktop" back another few years, I'm happy on Linux but any window Vista gave it has closed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113890</id>
	<title>Re:How is this zero-day?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258375980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A zero day exploit is an exploit that exists before the developers of the application are aware of the bug/flaw being exploited.  It does not seem unreasonable to keep refering to it as a zero day exploit even after the details of the bug and exploit have been published, how else would you refer to it, e.g. "the exploit formerly known as zero day";</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A zero day exploit is an exploit that exists before the developers of the application are aware of the bug/flaw being exploited .
It does not seem unreasonable to keep refering to it as a zero day exploit even after the details of the bug and exploit have been published , how else would you refer to it , e.g .
" the exploit formerly known as zero day " ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A zero day exploit is an exploit that exists before the developers of the application are aware of the bug/flaw being exploited.
It does not seem unreasonable to keep refering to it as a zero day exploit even after the details of the bug and exploit have been published, how else would you refer to it, e.g.
"the exploit formerly known as zero day";</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30120938</id>
	<title>Zero-day</title>
	<author>TangoMargarine</author>
	<datestamp>1258363800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there anybody else who's really tired of hearing everything on Slashdot get labelled a "zero-day exploit?" Correct me if I'm wrong, but by my understanding *most* exploits are zero-day, which basically means "they haven't fixed it yet." The alternative being bugs that have been fixed but are being exploited on machines that haven't been patched yet?</p><p>If this is correct (or close), why do we need to label everything "zero-day?" Can't we just assume that unless stated otherwise?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there anybody else who 's really tired of hearing everything on Slashdot get labelled a " zero-day exploit ?
" Correct me if I 'm wrong , but by my understanding * most * exploits are zero-day , which basically means " they have n't fixed it yet .
" The alternative being bugs that have been fixed but are being exploited on machines that have n't been patched yet ? If this is correct ( or close ) , why do we need to label everything " zero-day ?
" Ca n't we just assume that unless stated otherwise ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there anybody else who's really tired of hearing everything on Slashdot get labelled a "zero-day exploit?
" Correct me if I'm wrong, but by my understanding *most* exploits are zero-day, which basically means "they haven't fixed it yet.
" The alternative being bugs that have been fixed but are being exploited on machines that haven't been patched yet?If this is correct (or close), why do we need to label everything "zero-day?
" Can't we just assume that unless stated otherwise?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113634</id>
	<title>on or before the vendor knows about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258372500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the infallible wikipedia:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A "zero day" attack occurs on or before the first or "zeroth" day of vendor awareness, meaning the vendor has not had any opportunity to disseminate a security fix to users of the software. (In computer science, numbering often starts at zero instead of one.)</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the infallible wikipedia : A " zero day " attack occurs on or before the first or " zeroth " day of vendor awareness , meaning the vendor has not had any opportunity to disseminate a security fix to users of the software .
( In computer science , numbering often starts at zero instead of one .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the infallible wikipedia:A "zero day" attack occurs on or before the first or "zeroth" day of vendor awareness, meaning the vendor has not had any opportunity to disseminate a security fix to users of the software.
(In computer science, numbering often starts at zero instead of one.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113830</id>
	<title>Re:buttons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258375320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm OK then, my power button is beige.</p></div><p>that just means you can't recover</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm OK then , my power button is beige.that just means you ca n't recover</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm OK then, my power button is beige.that just means you can't recover
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114708</id>
	<title>Yet again ...</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1258384020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From NT, XP, Vista, Windows 7<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>When are they going to learn that EVERY port from 0 - 65535 should be disabled by default, and only enabled if the user chooses ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From NT , XP , Vista , Windows 7 ...When are they going to learn that EVERY port from 0 - 65535 should be disabled by default , and only enabled if the user chooses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From NT, XP, Vista, Windows 7 ...When are they going to learn that EVERY port from 0 - 65535 should be disabled by default, and only enabled if the user chooses ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30122634</id>
	<title>Re:How is this zero-day?</title>
	<author>mdielmann</author>
	<datestamp>1258369980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Almost right.  It's the time between when the bug was known by the developers/users, and when it was exploited (usually because the hackers found it first, and figured out how to use it before anyone else found it).  For 0-day exploits, you usually find out when your system gets compromised, or that someone's system got compromised shows up in the news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost right .
It 's the time between when the bug was known by the developers/users , and when it was exploited ( usually because the hackers found it first , and figured out how to use it before anyone else found it ) .
For 0-day exploits , you usually find out when your system gets compromised , or that someone 's system got compromised shows up in the news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost right.
It's the time between when the bug was known by the developers/users, and when it was exploited (usually because the hackers found it first, and figured out how to use it before anyone else found it).
For 0-day exploits, you usually find out when your system gets compromised, or that someone's system got compromised shows up in the news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30118232</id>
	<title>zero day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258398240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seem to have this issue with Win 7 and Windows Home Server.   My machine simply locks up hard when transferring files from the server to computer or from computer to server!   They say server 2003 is not affected yet home server is 2003 server modified and producing the exact same issue as described here..   Any other takers on that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to have this issue with Win 7 and Windows Home Server .
My machine simply locks up hard when transferring files from the server to computer or from computer to server !
They say server 2003 is not affected yet home server is 2003 server modified and producing the exact same issue as described here.. Any other takers on that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to have this issue with Win 7 and Windows Home Server.
My machine simply locks up hard when transferring files from the server to computer or from computer to server!
They say server 2003 is not affected yet home server is 2003 server modified and producing the exact same issue as described here..   Any other takers on that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113546</id>
	<title>block ports?</title>
	<author>orange47</author>
	<datestamp>1258371180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>aren't those two ports necessary for 'file and print sharing'/SAMBA?

the computers at work are almost useless without that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>are n't those two ports necessary for 'file and print sharing'/SAMBA ?
the computers at work are almost useless without that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>aren't those two ports necessary for 'file and print sharing'/SAMBA?
the computers at work are almost useless without that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113492</id>
	<title>Re:pushing the white button?? what does that mean?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258370460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yeah I'm sure he/she's referring to the power or reset button. maybe the poster was having a nostalgic day about old white desktop cases</htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah I 'm sure he/she 's referring to the power or reset button .
maybe the poster was having a nostalgic day about old white desktop cases</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah I'm sure he/she's referring to the power or reset button.
maybe the poster was having a nostalgic day about old white desktop cases</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113624</id>
	<title>Re:OMG what if my computer doesnt have a white but</title>
	<author>Vectronic</author>
	<datestamp>1258372320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simply use Wite-Out, or Liquid Cover-Up, doesn't matter what button, as long as it's white.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply use Wite-Out , or Liquid Cover-Up , does n't matter what button , as long as it 's white .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply use Wite-Out, or Liquid Cover-Up, doesn't matter what button, as long as it's white.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113424</id>
	<title>Not much of an exploit..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258369440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No remote code execution? Boring. Let's see if some people out there could weaponize it and throw it into a metasploit module. Then it's interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No remote code execution ?
Boring. Let 's see if some people out there could weaponize it and throw it into a metasploit module .
Then it 's interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No remote code execution?
Boring. Let's see if some people out there could weaponize it and throw it into a metasploit module.
Then it's interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113460</id>
	<title>Terrifyingly potent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258370040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A maliciously crafted URI could hard-crash affected machines beyond any remedy</i></p><p>Oh no! A PC-killer!</p><p><i>besides pushing the white button</i></p><p>A reboot? Well, it's an unorthodox and extreme solution to a machine crashing, we'll have a hard time convincing Windows users to do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A maliciously crafted URI could hard-crash affected machines beyond any remedyOh no !
A PC-killer ! besides pushing the white buttonA reboot ?
Well , it 's an unorthodox and extreme solution to a machine crashing , we 'll have a hard time convincing Windows users to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A maliciously crafted URI could hard-crash affected machines beyond any remedyOh no!
A PC-killer!besides pushing the white buttonA reboot?
Well, it's an unorthodox and extreme solution to a machine crashing, we'll have a hard time convincing Windows users to do that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115540</id>
	<title>Re:pushing the white button?? what does that mean?</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1258387920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The White Button is next to the Any Key...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The White Button is next to the Any Key.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The White Button is next to the Any Key...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113792</id>
	<title>Click on something that crashes my computer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258374900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait! EA has been doing the same thing to my computer every time I double click to launch on of their games!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait !
EA has been doing the same thing to my computer every time I double click to launch on of their games !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait!
EA has been doing the same thing to my computer every time I double click to launch on of their games!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113536</id>
	<title>Re:How is this zero-day?</title>
	<author>PCM2</author>
	<datestamp>1258371060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Replying to undo an accidental moderation that didn't deserve it.</p><p>Agreed that "zero day" has almost no meaning these days. Pretty bizarre when companies actually brag about their "zero day exploits" and promise a fix... several days from now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Replying to undo an accidental moderation that did n't deserve it.Agreed that " zero day " has almost no meaning these days .
Pretty bizarre when companies actually brag about their " zero day exploits " and promise a fix... several days from now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Replying to undo an accidental moderation that didn't deserve it.Agreed that "zero day" has almost no meaning these days.
Pretty bizarre when companies actually brag about their "zero day exploits" and promise a fix... several days from now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115658</id>
	<title>Windows only for corporations, not users</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1258388400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...but what about home users?</i></p><p>It's an admission that home users should not be running WIndows.  You'd think a few decades would have been enough to figure that out...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but what about home users ? It 's an admission that home users should not be running WIndows .
You 'd think a few decades would have been enough to figure that out.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but what about home users?It's an admission that home users should not be running WIndows.
You'd think a few decades would have been enough to figure that out...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113676</id>
	<title>Re:Secured by Default</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258373160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really,</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; So I should only be worried about folks from China ?  Not someone who just plugs into my local lan ?<br>And up till now I thought I had to restrict access to shares and take away administrative permissions to protect from internal threats ?</p><p>Which one is it -  China or internal ?  Methinks both and that is why this and any other similar (many) issue aren't just "block at the firewall"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ,     So I should only be worried about folks from China ?
Not someone who just plugs into my local lan ? And up till now I thought I had to restrict access to shares and take away administrative permissions to protect from internal threats ? Which one is it - China or internal ?
Methinks both and that is why this and any other similar ( many ) issue are n't just " block at the firewall "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really,
    So I should only be worried about folks from China ?
Not someone who just plugs into my local lan ?And up till now I thought I had to restrict access to shares and take away administrative permissions to protect from internal threats ?Which one is it -  China or internal ?
Methinks both and that is why this and any other similar (many) issue aren't just "block at the firewall"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114044</id>
	<title>File-Server</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258377540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just blocked those ports, now my users say that they can't access file-services on the server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just blocked those ports , now my users say that they ca n't access file-services on the server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just blocked those ports, now my users say that they can't access file-services on the server.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114244</id>
	<title>Not inbound, but *outbound*</title>
	<author>WD</author>
	<datestamp>1258379640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See my comment above:<br><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1444692&amp;cid=30114230" title="slashdot.org">http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1444692&amp;cid=30114230</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See my comment above : http : //it.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1444692&amp;cid = 30114230 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See my comment above:http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1444692&amp;cid=30114230 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114058</id>
	<title>Re:Ball kicking time</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1258377660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Don't they do code reviews at Microsoft? Loops 101: prove that the loop terminates under all conditions, even and especially when passed garbage. </i>
<p>
Every OS in existence has received patches. OS X, Windows, Linux, Unix, BSD (even OpenBSD). Ubuntu Linux 9.10 has been out less than a month and I've already been received 90 odd patches and it still has a critical ext4 file corruption bug.
</p><p>
I expect that even if MS rigorously tested the code (and I expect they did), used code coverage tools to ensure good quality testing, that the bug could still have slipped past. That's the real world. It doesn't excuse MS from promptly making a patch to fix the issue though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't they do code reviews at Microsoft ?
Loops 101 : prove that the loop terminates under all conditions , even and especially when passed garbage .
Every OS in existence has received patches .
OS X , Windows , Linux , Unix , BSD ( even OpenBSD ) .
Ubuntu Linux 9.10 has been out less than a month and I 've already been received 90 odd patches and it still has a critical ext4 file corruption bug .
I expect that even if MS rigorously tested the code ( and I expect they did ) , used code coverage tools to ensure good quality testing , that the bug could still have slipped past .
That 's the real world .
It does n't excuse MS from promptly making a patch to fix the issue though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't they do code reviews at Microsoft?
Loops 101: prove that the loop terminates under all conditions, even and especially when passed garbage.
Every OS in existence has received patches.
OS X, Windows, Linux, Unix, BSD (even OpenBSD).
Ubuntu Linux 9.10 has been out less than a month and I've already been received 90 odd patches and it still has a critical ext4 file corruption bug.
I expect that even if MS rigorously tested the code (and I expect they did), used code coverage tools to ensure good quality testing, that the bug could still have slipped past.
That's the real world.
It doesn't excuse MS from promptly making a patch to fix the issue though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114020</id>
	<title>Firewall wont help.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258377360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the exploit is possible without any user interaction all it takes to bring down a corporate network is one single machine running the xploit locally. A simple broadcast and every machine running w2kr2 or Vista7 will be dead until someone pulls the plug.</p><p>Im also very surprised that Micorosft didnt audit the code properly after the last hole. You would think that the former xploit would ring a couple of bells since it was big enough for a truck to run through. Im beginning to suspect all the talk about SDL, reviews and stuff are nothing but PR.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the exploit is possible without any user interaction all it takes to bring down a corporate network is one single machine running the xploit locally .
A simple broadcast and every machine running w2kr2 or Vista7 will be dead until someone pulls the plug.Im also very surprised that Micorosft didnt audit the code properly after the last hole .
You would think that the former xploit would ring a couple of bells since it was big enough for a truck to run through .
Im beginning to suspect all the talk about SDL , reviews and stuff are nothing but PR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the exploit is possible without any user interaction all it takes to bring down a corporate network is one single machine running the xploit locally.
A simple broadcast and every machine running w2kr2 or Vista7 will be dead until someone pulls the plug.Im also very surprised that Micorosft didnt audit the code properly after the last hole.
You would think that the former xploit would ring a couple of bells since it was big enough for a truck to run through.
Im beginning to suspect all the talk about SDL, reviews and stuff are nothing but PR.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113666</id>
	<title>Answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258373100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's so special about 139 and 445? What do they do normally, and why would blocking them help?</p></div><p>Here's a list of assigned port numbers: <a href="https://www.arin.net/knowledge/rfc/rfc1700.txt" title="arin.net">https://www.arin.net/knowledge/rfc/rfc1700.txt</a> [arin.net]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's so special about 139 and 445 ?
What do they do normally , and why would blocking them help ? Here 's a list of assigned port numbers : https : //www.arin.net/knowledge/rfc/rfc1700.txt [ arin.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's so special about 139 and 445?
What do they do normally, and why would blocking them help?Here's a list of assigned port numbers: https://www.arin.net/knowledge/rfc/rfc1700.txt [arin.net]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115340</id>
	<title>Re:You need to block *outgoing* ports</title>
	<author>wvmarle</author>
	<datestamp>1258386960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK it is a bit whining about semantics, but I wondered why they say "block port xxx at the firewall" instead of "do not open port xxx at the firewall unless you have a very good reason to do so". After all I expect a firewall in default state to block everything, that's why you have one such a device. </p><p>Now you say it is about outgoing connections even! That is normally by default all allowed indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK it is a bit whining about semantics , but I wondered why they say " block port xxx at the firewall " instead of " do not open port xxx at the firewall unless you have a very good reason to do so " .
After all I expect a firewall in default state to block everything , that 's why you have one such a device .
Now you say it is about outgoing connections even !
That is normally by default all allowed indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK it is a bit whining about semantics, but I wondered why they say "block port xxx at the firewall" instead of "do not open port xxx at the firewall unless you have a very good reason to do so".
After all I expect a firewall in default state to block everything, that's why you have one such a device.
Now you say it is about outgoing connections even!
That is normally by default all allowed indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30121302</id>
	<title>Re:Yet again ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258365300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, you want users to write specific policy rules to open a web browser? The exploit refers to <b>outgoing</b> connections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , you want users to write specific policy rules to open a web browser ?
The exploit refers to outgoing connections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, you want users to write specific policy rules to open a web browser?
The exploit refers to outgoing connections.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115250</id>
	<title>Re:Not much of an exploit..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258386660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That not boring, It the return of Win nuke.<br>This might just make windows 7 popular again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That not boring , It the return of Win nuke.This might just make windows 7 popular again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That not boring, It the return of Win nuke.This might just make windows 7 popular again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115914</id>
	<title>Re:OMG what if my computer doesnt have a white but</title>
	<author>CityZen</author>
	<datestamp>1258389660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I kind of miss the Big Red Switch.  A friend would sometimes say "Oh, that's a BRS error," when describing bugs for which the only solution involved said switch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I kind of miss the Big Red Switch .
A friend would sometimes say " Oh , that 's a BRS error , " when describing bugs for which the only solution involved said switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I kind of miss the Big Red Switch.
A friend would sometimes say "Oh, that's a BRS error," when describing bugs for which the only solution involved said switch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114014</id>
	<title>Re:I have to ask</title>
	<author>XedLightParticle</author>
	<datestamp>1258377300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>getent services | grep 139<br>
getent services | grep 445</htmltext>
<tokenext>getent services | grep 139 getent services | grep 445</tokentext>
<sentencetext>getent services | grep 139
getent services | grep 445</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113744</id>
	<title>Re:Ball kicking time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258374300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keep raging at that machine Rogerborg. But I'm sure the basement-dwelling college crowd will mod you up, whose only experience with development is that 5-line shell script they put together to compile a Linux kernel. Pathetic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep raging at that machine Rogerborg .
But I 'm sure the basement-dwelling college crowd will mod you up , whose only experience with development is that 5-line shell script they put together to compile a Linux kernel .
Pathetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep raging at that machine Rogerborg.
But I'm sure the basement-dwelling college crowd will mod you up, whose only experience with development is that 5-line shell script they put together to compile a Linux kernel.
Pathetic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113422</id>
	<title>Ball kicking time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258369380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't they do code reviews at Microsoft?  Loops 101: prove that the loop terminates under all conditions, even and especially when passed garbage.

</p><p>Seriously, that's the difference between a hacker and a software engineer right there.  If you don't take the time to fix it early, you'll just have to fix it later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't they do code reviews at Microsoft ?
Loops 101 : prove that the loop terminates under all conditions , even and especially when passed garbage .
Seriously , that 's the difference between a hacker and a software engineer right there .
If you do n't take the time to fix it early , you 'll just have to fix it later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't they do code reviews at Microsoft?
Loops 101: prove that the loop terminates under all conditions, even and especially when passed garbage.
Seriously, that's the difference between a hacker and a software engineer right there.
If you don't take the time to fix it early, you'll just have to fix it later.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30119066</id>
	<title>Re:IT staff?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1258400820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, your wife married an ignorant asshole.</p><p>Since Windows 7 has this firewalled safely out of the box for public networks your wife is fortunate.</p><p>Of course if you weren't so busy telling every how you're so good at being an unhelpful, inconsiderate dick you'd have spent 3 minutes to do some investigation to know that rather than leaving her to wonder.</p><p>Your attitude and low slashdot id leads me to believe that by 'wife' you mean Realdoll since I find it unlikely anyone would stay married to such a worthless jackass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , your wife married an ignorant asshole.Since Windows 7 has this firewalled safely out of the box for public networks your wife is fortunate.Of course if you were n't so busy telling every how you 're so good at being an unhelpful , inconsiderate dick you 'd have spent 3 minutes to do some investigation to know that rather than leaving her to wonder.Your attitude and low slashdot id leads me to believe that by 'wife ' you mean Realdoll since I find it unlikely anyone would stay married to such a worthless jackass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, your wife married an ignorant asshole.Since Windows 7 has this firewalled safely out of the box for public networks your wife is fortunate.Of course if you weren't so busy telling every how you're so good at being an unhelpful, inconsiderate dick you'd have spent 3 minutes to do some investigation to know that rather than leaving her to wonder.Your attitude and low slashdot id leads me to believe that by 'wife' you mean Realdoll since I find it unlikely anyone would stay married to such a worthless jackass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113758</id>
	<title>It is 0-day, i think</title>
	<author>antivoid</author>
	<datestamp>1258374540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe that, in a company with OS rollout cycles of 2 years or more like Microsoft, 1 week is considered 0-day, given the frequency with which the average home user updates their OS with patches.
<br> <br>
I am not here to troll/bash in general, but I quite like Windows 7. So far IMHO its the best Windows version released to date, and I haven't heard of many bugs and crashes and vulnerabilities, besides this one.
<br> <br>
Windows Vista is to Windows 2000 as Windows Me is to Windows 98. Windows 7 &lt;3<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that , in a company with OS rollout cycles of 2 years or more like Microsoft , 1 week is considered 0-day , given the frequency with which the average home user updates their OS with patches .
I am not here to troll/bash in general , but I quite like Windows 7 .
So far IMHO its the best Windows version released to date , and I have n't heard of many bugs and crashes and vulnerabilities , besides this one .
Windows Vista is to Windows 2000 as Windows Me is to Windows 98 .
Windows 7 : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that, in a company with OS rollout cycles of 2 years or more like Microsoft, 1 week is considered 0-day, given the frequency with which the average home user updates their OS with patches.
I am not here to troll/bash in general, but I quite like Windows 7.
So far IMHO its the best Windows version released to date, and I haven't heard of many bugs and crashes and vulnerabilities, besides this one.
Windows Vista is to Windows 2000 as Windows Me is to Windows 98.
Windows 7  :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113520</id>
	<title>Re:I have to ask</title>
	<author>Spad</author>
	<datestamp>1258370880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>139 is NETBIOS, 445 is SMB.</p><p>139 is used for discovery and browsing of network shares (Primarily on legacy machines), 445 is the "current" port for accessing network shares.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>139 is NETBIOS , 445 is SMB.139 is used for discovery and browsing of network shares ( Primarily on legacy machines ) , 445 is the " current " port for accessing network shares .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>139 is NETBIOS, 445 is SMB.139 is used for discovery and browsing of network shares (Primarily on legacy machines), 445 is the "current" port for accessing network shares.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115516</id>
	<title>Re:OMG what if my computer doesnt have a white but</title>
	<author>Mr\_Miagi</author>
	<datestamp>1258387740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Buy an Apple... Sort of solves two problems, doesn't it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy an Apple... Sort of solves two problems , does n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buy an Apple... Sort of solves two problems, doesn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30119490</id>
	<title>Re:pushing the white button?? what does that mean?</title>
	<author>YankDownUnder</author>
	<datestamp>1258402080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm going to start marketing "White Buttons" online, for a small price of $19.95 AUD. If you DO NOT have a "White Button", please contact me for details on how to pre-order your own, personalised and customisable "White Button". I've also applied for a patent and copyright on "White Button", as per M$ standards - so getting a "White Button" from anyone other than myself will result in patent infringement and copyright violation. Even mentioning "White Button" outside of MY context is grounds for legal action. How many "White Buttons" would you care to order today? (Oh yeah, and next week, "White Button v.1.1" will be out and you can upgrade from "White Button v.1" for a small licensing fee of $19.95 AUD)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to start marketing " White Buttons " online , for a small price of $ 19.95 AUD .
If you DO NOT have a " White Button " , please contact me for details on how to pre-order your own , personalised and customisable " White Button " .
I 've also applied for a patent and copyright on " White Button " , as per M $ standards - so getting a " White Button " from anyone other than myself will result in patent infringement and copyright violation .
Even mentioning " White Button " outside of MY context is grounds for legal action .
How many " White Buttons " would you care to order today ?
( Oh yeah , and next week , " White Button v.1.1 " will be out and you can upgrade from " White Button v.1 " for a small licensing fee of $ 19.95 AUD )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to start marketing "White Buttons" online, for a small price of $19.95 AUD.
If you DO NOT have a "White Button", please contact me for details on how to pre-order your own, personalised and customisable "White Button".
I've also applied for a patent and copyright on "White Button", as per M$ standards - so getting a "White Button" from anyone other than myself will result in patent infringement and copyright violation.
Even mentioning "White Button" outside of MY context is grounds for legal action.
How many "White Buttons" would you care to order today?
(Oh yeah, and next week, "White Button v.1.1" will be out and you can upgrade from "White Button v.1" for a small licensing fee of $19.95 AUD)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114126</id>
	<title>It's not as bad as it sounds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258378320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Calm down, everybody.</p><p>This bug cannot be exploited from the outside without user interaction.</p><p>It can only be exploited from the outside *if* the user clicks a malicious link (like \\12.34.56.78\crash) for example in a browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Calm down , everybody.This bug can not be exploited from the outside without user interaction.It can only be exploited from the outside * if * the user clicks a malicious link ( like \ \ 12.34.56.78 \ crash ) for example in a browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Calm down, everybody.This bug cannot be exploited from the outside without user interaction.It can only be exploited from the outside *if* the user clicks a malicious link (like \\12.34.56.78\crash) for example in a browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113480</id>
	<title>Re:Secured by Default</title>
	<author>andyjb</author>
	<datestamp>1258370340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yes, but that's still not great is it? esp when it could be safer by design.

It doesn't seem as if it would take a more-easy-to-spot DOS attack either - just a lightweight process occasionally spamming these bad URIs to Server 2008 and win7 boxes on the network.</htmltext>
<tokenext>yes , but that 's still not great is it ?
esp when it could be safer by design .
It does n't seem as if it would take a more-easy-to-spot DOS attack either - just a lightweight process occasionally spamming these bad URIs to Server 2008 and win7 boxes on the network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes, but that's still not great is it?
esp when it could be safer by design.
It doesn't seem as if it would take a more-easy-to-spot DOS attack either - just a lightweight process occasionally spamming these bad URIs to Server 2008 and win7 boxes on the network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114308</id>
	<title>Deja Vu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258380480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has there ever been a version of Windows since 1995 that did NOT require blocking ports 139 and 445?</p><p>Will Microsoft ever get it right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has there ever been a version of Windows since 1995 that did NOT require blocking ports 139 and 445 ? Will Microsoft ever get it right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has there ever been a version of Windows since 1995 that did NOT require blocking ports 139 and 445?Will Microsoft ever get it right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114784</id>
	<title>Does this affect Samba</title>
	<author>fast turtle</author>
	<datestamp>1258384560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and the Linux Kernel SMB support? If it does, we've got a major problem as they now have a method of taking a whole batch of sites down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and the Linux Kernel SMB support ?
If it does , we 've got a major problem as they now have a method of taking a whole batch of sites down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the Linux Kernel SMB support?
If it does, we've got a major problem as they now have a method of taking a whole batch of sites down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114102</id>
	<title>Erm... no. Not quite.</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1258378080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"As important as this the mentioned article is, it should also be pointed out that any IT staff worth their pay packet should already have port 139 blocked at the firewall, and probably port 445. too."</p></div><p>I respectfully disagree.</p><p>Any IT staff worth their pay packet should have EVERYTHING blocked at the firewall, then open holes for things that you can be certain you need.  Ideally, those holes don't go direct to systems on the company LAN but instead to a DMZ.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" As important as this the mentioned article is , it should also be pointed out that any IT staff worth their pay packet should already have port 139 blocked at the firewall , and probably port 445 .
too. " I respectfully disagree.Any IT staff worth their pay packet should have EVERYTHING blocked at the firewall , then open holes for things that you can be certain you need .
Ideally , those holes do n't go direct to systems on the company LAN but instead to a DMZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As important as this the mentioned article is, it should also be pointed out that any IT staff worth their pay packet should already have port 139 blocked at the firewall, and probably port 445.
too."I respectfully disagree.Any IT staff worth their pay packet should have EVERYTHING blocked at the firewall, then open holes for things that you can be certain you need.
Ideally, those holes don't go direct to systems on the company LAN but instead to a DMZ.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114064</id>
	<title>Zero day</title>
	<author>Jeremy Visser</author>
	<datestamp>1258377780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, this may be the first "zero day" exploit, but <a href="http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2009/Sep/39" title="seclists.org">this one</a> [seclists.org] ("Windows Vista/7 : SMB2.0 NEGOTIATE PROTOCOL	REQUEST Remote B.S.O.D.") was around for much longer, and it's truly amazing that it still works on a majority of machines I <a href="http://dereenigne.com/bin/smbdie.zip" title="dereenigne.com">try it out</a> [dereenigne.com] on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , this may be the first " zero day " exploit , but this one [ seclists.org ] ( " Windows Vista/7 : SMB2.0 NEGOTIATE PROTOCOL REQUEST Remote B.S.O.D .
" ) was around for much longer , and it 's truly amazing that it still works on a majority of machines I try it out [ dereenigne.com ] on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, this may be the first "zero day" exploit, but this one [seclists.org] ("Windows Vista/7 : SMB2.0 NEGOTIATE PROTOCOL	REQUEST Remote B.S.O.D.
") was around for much longer, and it's truly amazing that it still works on a majority of machines I try it out [dereenigne.com] on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30117604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30122634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30125260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30121654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30119490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30118296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30121302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30125204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30120192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30118054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30119066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30118686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30116386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30145586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30119824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30120796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30117790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30124644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30116414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30117902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30120072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_0113249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_0113249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30119490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30120072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30118686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_0113249.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30117902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_0113249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30119066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30117790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_0113249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_0113249.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_0113249.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_0113249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_0113249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30116414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30120192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_0113249.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_0113249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_0113249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_0113249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_0113249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_0113249.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_0113249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30119824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30124644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30120796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30121302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_0113249.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_0113249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30116386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114466
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30122634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30145586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30118296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_0113249.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30115340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30125204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30117604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30125260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30121654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30118054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_0113249.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_0113249.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_0113249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30113676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_0113249.30114060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
