<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_15_0013239</id>
	<title>IE 0-Day Flaw Used In Chinese Attack</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1263558540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:rbheer@gm\%5B\%5D.com\%5B'ail'ingap\%5D" rel="nofollow">bheer</a> writes <i>"A <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/14/cyber\_assault\_followup/">zero-day attack on IE</a> was used to carry out the cyber attack on Google and others that's been <a href="//tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/14/1637251/Google-Attackers-Identified-as-Chinese-Government">getting</a> <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/13/1657249/Googlecn-Attack-Part-of-a-Broad-Spying-Effort">so</a> <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/13/1322225/Googlecn-Has-Already-Lifted-Censorship">much</a> <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/12/2329231/Google-Hacked-May-Pull-Out-of-China">ink</a> recently, reports The Register, quoting <a href="http://siblog.mcafee.com/cto/operation-\%E2\%80\%9Caurora\%E2\%80\%9D-hit-google-others/">McAfee's CTO</a>. While the web (and security) community has pointed out the problems with IE's many security flaws (and its sluggish update cycle) in the past, IE shows <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9143918/Microsoft\_IE\_s\_downfall\_far\_fetched\_says\_researcher">no sign of vanishing</a> from the corporate landscape."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bheer writes " A zero-day attack on IE was used to carry out the cyber attack on Google and others that 's been getting so much ink recently , reports The Register , quoting McAfee 's CTO .
While the web ( and security ) community has pointed out the problems with IE 's many security flaws ( and its sluggish update cycle ) in the past , IE shows no sign of vanishing from the corporate landscape .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bheer writes "A zero-day attack on IE was used to carry out the cyber attack on Google and others that's been getting so much ink recently, reports The Register, quoting McAfee's CTO.
While the web (and security) community has pointed out the problems with IE's many security flaws (and its sluggish update cycle) in the past, IE shows no sign of vanishing from the corporate landscape.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30778064</id>
	<title>Re:It's not stupidity</title>
	<author>JamesP</author>
	<datestamp>1263566220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YES, IT IS STUPIDITY</p><p>Relying on Sharepoint IS STUPID when there are alternatives.</p><p>Relying on IE 6 is BEYOND STUPID</p><p>Why do we keep up with the BS?!?</p><p>Here's a tip, when your IT guy comes talking about why it's important to keep IE6 for the same BS reasons as ever to cover his idiocy, FIRE HIM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YES , IT IS STUPIDITYRelying on Sharepoint IS STUPID when there are alternatives.Relying on IE 6 is BEYOND STUPIDWhy do we keep up with the BS ? !
? Here 's a tip , when your IT guy comes talking about why it 's important to keep IE6 for the same BS reasons as ever to cover his idiocy , FIRE HIM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YES, IT IS STUPIDITYRelying on Sharepoint IS STUPID when there are alternatives.Relying on IE 6 is BEYOND STUPIDWhy do we keep up with the BS?!
?Here's a tip, when your IT guy comes talking about why it's important to keep IE6 for the same BS reasons as ever to cover his idiocy, FIRE HIM</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774020</id>
	<title>Re:It's not stupidity</title>
	<author>awitod</author>
	<datestamp>1263479580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SharePoint 2010 does not fully support IE 6.0. It is a down-level browser. SharePoint 2010 does fully support FireFox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera.</p><p>Just thought you'd be happy to know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SharePoint 2010 does not fully support IE 6.0 .
It is a down-level browser .
SharePoint 2010 does fully support FireFox , Chrome , Safari , and Opera.Just thought you 'd be happy to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SharePoint 2010 does not fully support IE 6.0.
It is a down-level browser.
SharePoint 2010 does fully support FireFox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera.Just thought you'd be happy to know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30777300</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why are people at google using IE?</title>
	<author>ZigiSamblak</author>
	<datestamp>1263559380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because IE is still the most popular browser. If Google wants to develop applications that run smoothly on every machine out there it makes sense for them to use every browser under the sun and <i>especially</i> IE throughout the company.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because IE is still the most popular browser .
If Google wants to develop applications that run smoothly on every machine out there it makes sense for them to use every browser under the sun and especially IE throughout the company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because IE is still the most popular browser.
If Google wants to develop applications that run smoothly on every machine out there it makes sense for them to use every browser under the sun and especially IE throughout the company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773644</id>
	<title>Re:A major security flaw in IE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263476940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just keep using mainstream Microsoft products and acting surprised when this happens.  At least the rest of us can derive some amusement from your insistence that "Microsoft == high-quality" because it has a recognizable brand name.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just keep using mainstream Microsoft products and acting surprised when this happens .
At least the rest of us can derive some amusement from your insistence that " Microsoft = = high-quality " because it has a recognizable brand name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just keep using mainstream Microsoft products and acting surprised when this happens.
At least the rest of us can derive some amusement from your insistence that "Microsoft == high-quality" because it has a recognizable brand name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775396</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, but it doesn't count, right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263491400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>your UNIX-FUD is just as good as MS-FUD<br>what do you think of windows services for unix ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>your UNIX-FUD is just as good as MS-FUDwhat do you think of windows services for unix ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your UNIX-FUD is just as good as MS-FUDwhat do you think of windows services for unix ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776572</id>
	<title>Re:Nice spin !</title>
	<author>Logic Worshipper</author>
	<datestamp>1263550200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It wasn't google employees it was end users with google accounts who installed the malware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was n't google employees it was end users with google accounts who installed the malware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wasn't google employees it was end users with google accounts who installed the malware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775732</id>
	<title>Re:Attacks targeted IE6</title>
	<author>decaffeinated</author>
	<datestamp>1263495660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The stupid but obvious question: why are people at these companies using IE6?</p></div><p>Some companies employ IT as an afterthought and, consequently, staffing suffers as a result.  Typically, the help desk is outsourced and the local IT employees are simply not empowered to make bold decisions (like, say, forcing everyone to fix their IE6-dependent apps).</p><p>At the company where I work, I suspect we'll migrate off IE6 when some external entity forces our hand.  For example, if/when Google withdraws support for IE6.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The stupid but obvious question : why are people at these companies using IE6 ? Some companies employ IT as an afterthought and , consequently , staffing suffers as a result .
Typically , the help desk is outsourced and the local IT employees are simply not empowered to make bold decisions ( like , say , forcing everyone to fix their IE6-dependent apps ) .At the company where I work , I suspect we 'll migrate off IE6 when some external entity forces our hand .
For example , if/when Google withdraws support for IE6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The stupid but obvious question: why are people at these companies using IE6?Some companies employ IT as an afterthought and, consequently, staffing suffers as a result.
Typically, the help desk is outsourced and the local IT employees are simply not empowered to make bold decisions (like, say, forcing everyone to fix their IE6-dependent apps).At the company where I work, I suspect we'll migrate off IE6 when some external entity forces our hand.
For example, if/when Google withdraws support for IE6.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776886</id>
	<title>Re:China is a major IT threat !</title>
	<author>10101001 10101001</author>
	<datestamp>1263554460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Make no mistake, China is agressively attacking foreign systems and common software. They are stockpiling these zero-day exploits as potential weapons. They use one until it's discovered and patched, then wait until they have another high priority and then unwrap the next one.</p><p>When you see Symantec or Microsoft reporting an "undisclosed source" on new vulnerabilities, it's usually our own government that reported it after investigating a compromise.</p></div> </blockquote><p>When you think about it that way, public disclosure of a vulnerability ASAP (ie, even before telling the vendor) is actually responsible disclosure.  For many 0-day flaws, the only real protection is to stop using the effected application.  And while many people are willing to take the risk and continue to use the application, clearly companies like Google (and Microsoft, for that matter) have a lot to lose if a country like China were to obtain information about its customers through one of it's employees innocent use of an application.</p><p>In short, for all the discussion of the hypothetical black hats who would use every vulnerability available to them, especially the ones not public yet, I think this presents a pretty clear picture of a real state-backed black hat doing just that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Make no mistake , China is agressively attacking foreign systems and common software .
They are stockpiling these zero-day exploits as potential weapons .
They use one until it 's discovered and patched , then wait until they have another high priority and then unwrap the next one.When you see Symantec or Microsoft reporting an " undisclosed source " on new vulnerabilities , it 's usually our own government that reported it after investigating a compromise .
When you think about it that way , public disclosure of a vulnerability ASAP ( ie , even before telling the vendor ) is actually responsible disclosure .
For many 0-day flaws , the only real protection is to stop using the effected application .
And while many people are willing to take the risk and continue to use the application , clearly companies like Google ( and Microsoft , for that matter ) have a lot to lose if a country like China were to obtain information about its customers through one of it 's employees innocent use of an application.In short , for all the discussion of the hypothetical black hats who would use every vulnerability available to them , especially the ones not public yet , I think this presents a pretty clear picture of a real state-backed black hat doing just that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make no mistake, China is agressively attacking foreign systems and common software.
They are stockpiling these zero-day exploits as potential weapons.
They use one until it's discovered and patched, then wait until they have another high priority and then unwrap the next one.When you see Symantec or Microsoft reporting an "undisclosed source" on new vulnerabilities, it's usually our own government that reported it after investigating a compromise.
When you think about it that way, public disclosure of a vulnerability ASAP (ie, even before telling the vendor) is actually responsible disclosure.
For many 0-day flaws, the only real protection is to stop using the effected application.
And while many people are willing to take the risk and continue to use the application, clearly companies like Google (and Microsoft, for that matter) have a lot to lose if a country like China were to obtain information about its customers through one of it's employees innocent use of an application.In short, for all the discussion of the hypothetical black hats who would use every vulnerability available to them, especially the ones not public yet, I think this presents a pretty clear picture of a real state-backed black hat doing just that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774612</id>
	<title>Re:No real fix...</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1263484080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me that in light of MS's inability to provide an adequate fix, the appropriate solution would be, in those situations where IE has to be used, to run Windows in a virtual machine that was well isolated from the real OS. This could be done under Linux or Mac.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that in light of MS 's inability to provide an adequate fix , the appropriate solution would be , in those situations where IE has to be used , to run Windows in a virtual machine that was well isolated from the real OS .
This could be done under Linux or Mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that in light of MS's inability to provide an adequate fix, the appropriate solution would be, in those situations where IE has to be used, to run Windows in a virtual machine that was well isolated from the real OS.
This could be done under Linux or Mac.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30777838</id>
	<title>Re:Attacks targeted IE6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263564900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any half-decent web development company uses a number of browsers/version combinations to ensure that it's apps run on the most numerous plaftorms possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any half-decent web development company uses a number of browsers/version combinations to ensure that it 's apps run on the most numerous plaftorms possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any half-decent web development company uses a number of browsers/version combinations to ensure that it's apps run on the most numerous plaftorms possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776230</id>
	<title>Friends don't let friends...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263589140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Friends don't let friends use Internet Exploder.</p><p>That name for IE just makes me laugh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Friends do n't let friends use Internet Exploder.That name for IE just makes me laugh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Friends don't let friends use Internet Exploder.That name for IE just makes me laugh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30777566</id>
	<title>Re:It's not stupidity</title>
	<author>sam0737</author>
	<datestamp>1263562140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey - Sharepoint actually does rendering perfectly under Firefox, except for the places that requires ActiveX and MSFT is not providing the eqv. plugin for Firefox. It's at least much better than many other web-ish.</p><p>Though, in order to have Single sign on (Active Directory environment, Windows Integrated Kerberos authenication), IE is the only way to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey - Sharepoint actually does rendering perfectly under Firefox , except for the places that requires ActiveX and MSFT is not providing the eqv .
plugin for Firefox .
It 's at least much better than many other web-ish.Though , in order to have Single sign on ( Active Directory environment , Windows Integrated Kerberos authenication ) , IE is the only way to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey - Sharepoint actually does rendering perfectly under Firefox, except for the places that requires ActiveX and MSFT is not providing the eqv.
plugin for Firefox.
It's at least much better than many other web-ish.Though, in order to have Single sign on (Active Directory environment, Windows Integrated Kerberos authenication), IE is the only way to go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773586</id>
	<title>It's not stupidity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263476640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Corporate users largely work on intranets, and intranets are largely supported by guys who don't have the resources a professional development team has.  So corporations buy large make-your-own-adventure web-ish packages like Sharepoint, and suddenly they're locked into IE for another cycle, and the whole ugly repeats itself.  It's genuinely difficult to not get locked into somebody's product stack, and Microsoft's is, on the whole, no worse than anybody else's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporate users largely work on intranets , and intranets are largely supported by guys who do n't have the resources a professional development team has .
So corporations buy large make-your-own-adventure web-ish packages like Sharepoint , and suddenly they 're locked into IE for another cycle , and the whole ugly repeats itself .
It 's genuinely difficult to not get locked into somebody 's product stack , and Microsoft 's is , on the whole , no worse than anybody else 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporate users largely work on intranets, and intranets are largely supported by guys who don't have the resources a professional development team has.
So corporations buy large make-your-own-adventure web-ish packages like Sharepoint, and suddenly they're locked into IE for another cycle, and the whole ugly repeats itself.
It's genuinely difficult to not get locked into somebody's product stack, and Microsoft's is, on the whole, no worse than anybody else's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774370</id>
	<title>Re:Using Macs could have prevented this!</title>
	<author>broken\_chaos</author>
	<datestamp>1263482100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Arciemowicz said the vulnerability could be remotely exploited using booby-trapped PHP code on a website, among other methods.</p></div><p>What? How would 'booby-trapped PHP code' on a website crash a machine? PHP is executed on the <em>server</em>, not on the <em>client</em>. If it can be exploited with JavaScript and HTML, I'd be interested in seeing an example of that -- as opposed to a C program... yeah, okay, an exploit, but I'd have to, oh, <em>run a program I don't trust</em>, which is <em>always</em> a security flaw...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Arciemowicz said the vulnerability could be remotely exploited using booby-trapped PHP code on a website , among other methods.What ?
How would 'booby-trapped PHP code ' on a website crash a machine ?
PHP is executed on the server , not on the client .
If it can be exploited with JavaScript and HTML , I 'd be interested in seeing an example of that -- as opposed to a C program... yeah , okay , an exploit , but I 'd have to , oh , run a program I do n't trust , which is always a security flaw.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Arciemowicz said the vulnerability could be remotely exploited using booby-trapped PHP code on a website, among other methods.What?
How would 'booby-trapped PHP code' on a website crash a machine?
PHP is executed on the server, not on the client.
If it can be exploited with JavaScript and HTML, I'd be interested in seeing an example of that -- as opposed to a C program... yeah, okay, an exploit, but I'd have to, oh, run a program I don't trust, which is always a security flaw...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773942</id>
	<title>Re:A major security flaw in IE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263478860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is unheard of!</p></div><p>Until it gets reported or exploited, then everyone knows about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is unheard of ! Until it gets reported or exploited , then everyone knows about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is unheard of!Until it gets reported or exploited, then everyone knows about it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774842</id>
	<title>Re:Attacks targeted IE6</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1263485940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's why.<br>Say the package your accountants have been using for years finally came out in October with a web based version instead of the old crap client-server version with a lot of MSDOS legacy.  The freshly released software only works with IE6.<br>We like to blame the "stupid users" for security problems, but in most cases it's really stupid developers presenting stupid options to the user.  The same "stupid users" will have ADSL modems permanantly on the net or other bits of gear that nobody has ever hacked into or infected with malware.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's why.Say the package your accountants have been using for years finally came out in October with a web based version instead of the old crap client-server version with a lot of MSDOS legacy .
The freshly released software only works with IE6.We like to blame the " stupid users " for security problems , but in most cases it 's really stupid developers presenting stupid options to the user .
The same " stupid users " will have ADSL modems permanantly on the net or other bits of gear that nobody has ever hacked into or infected with malware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's why.Say the package your accountants have been using for years finally came out in October with a web based version instead of the old crap client-server version with a lot of MSDOS legacy.
The freshly released software only works with IE6.We like to blame the "stupid users" for security problems, but in most cases it's really stupid developers presenting stupid options to the user.
The same "stupid users" will have ADSL modems permanantly on the net or other bits of gear that nobody has ever hacked into or infected with malware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775950</id>
	<title>Computer World - always a reliable source (NOT)</title>
	<author>RobertM1968</author>
	<datestamp>1263498900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love the article they cited for their browser data - which the author used a company that publishes data that ComputerWorld cannot seem to understand...

</p><p> <a href="http://www.xpnet.com/clarity9/exochartwidget.aspx?Type=15&amp;Layout=&amp;Size=&amp;Labels=&amp;DateStamp=" title="xpnet.com">Browser Stats</a> [xpnet.com]

</p><p>Check it out... according the xpnet's graph, IE is used on 80\% of the systems, and Firefox on 48\% (roughly, from estimating the bars on the graphs). That means... what? The only thing i can think of is it means that 48\% of the users/systems are running Firefox - while also running IE (hmmm... Windows Update or other reasons?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the article they cited for their browser data - which the author used a company that publishes data that ComputerWorld can not seem to understand.. . Browser Stats [ xpnet.com ] Check it out... according the xpnet 's graph , IE is used on 80 \ % of the systems , and Firefox on 48 \ % ( roughly , from estimating the bars on the graphs ) .
That means... what ? The only thing i can think of is it means that 48 \ % of the users/systems are running Firefox - while also running IE ( hmmm... Windows Update or other reasons ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the article they cited for their browser data - which the author used a company that publishes data that ComputerWorld cannot seem to understand...

 Browser Stats [xpnet.com]

Check it out... according the xpnet's graph, IE is used on 80\% of the systems, and Firefox on 48\% (roughly, from estimating the bars on the graphs).
That means... what? The only thing i can think of is it means that 48\% of the users/systems are running Firefox - while also running IE (hmmm... Windows Update or other reasons?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773562</id>
	<title>Re:Using Macs could have prevented this!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263476520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Using Firefox would have prevented it and still spared the needless expense of fashionable but mediocre and overpriced hardware for basic office minion tasks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Using Firefox would have prevented it and still spared the needless expense of fashionable but mediocre and overpriced hardware for basic office minion tasks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using Firefox would have prevented it and still spared the needless expense of fashionable but mediocre and overpriced hardware for basic office minion tasks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775406</id>
	<title>Re:A major security flaw in IE?</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1263491520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't confuse the lack of an efficient and effective workflow with bad componentry. There are plenty of good packages to be had that can handle the various issues described in PP. If the developer doesn't know how to glue them together... well, it is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

</p><p>Of course if for some reason the freely available packages cannot be used then you are stuck trying to reinvent the wheel. Which I suppose is the case for Microsoft since it cannot use FOSS, and is also committed to supporting its legacy of strategically bad design decisions. Like folding the browser into the operating system.

</p><p>Good browsers are not that difficult to work with. Firefox, Konqueror, Opera, and so on keep churning out steadily improving products in short order and have had very little trouble with security flaws. One of the reasons for this is that the black hats are well aware that any vulnerability they might exploit is likely to be short-lived, while if they just focus on MSIE, they are likely to get a much longer window of opportunity before the holes are patched.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't confuse the lack of an efficient and effective workflow with bad componentry .
There are plenty of good packages to be had that can handle the various issues described in PP .
If the developer does n't know how to glue them together... well , it is a poor craftsman who blames his tools .
Of course if for some reason the freely available packages can not be used then you are stuck trying to reinvent the wheel .
Which I suppose is the case for Microsoft since it can not use FOSS , and is also committed to supporting its legacy of strategically bad design decisions .
Like folding the browser into the operating system .
Good browsers are not that difficult to work with .
Firefox , Konqueror , Opera , and so on keep churning out steadily improving products in short order and have had very little trouble with security flaws .
One of the reasons for this is that the black hats are well aware that any vulnerability they might exploit is likely to be short-lived , while if they just focus on MSIE , they are likely to get a much longer window of opportunity before the holes are patched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't confuse the lack of an efficient and effective workflow with bad componentry.
There are plenty of good packages to be had that can handle the various issues described in PP.
If the developer doesn't know how to glue them together... well, it is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.
Of course if for some reason the freely available packages cannot be used then you are stuck trying to reinvent the wheel.
Which I suppose is the case for Microsoft since it cannot use FOSS, and is also committed to supporting its legacy of strategically bad design decisions.
Like folding the browser into the operating system.
Good browsers are not that difficult to work with.
Firefox, Konqueror, Opera, and so on keep churning out steadily improving products in short order and have had very little trouble with security flaws.
One of the reasons for this is that the black hats are well aware that any vulnerability they might exploit is likely to be short-lived, while if they just focus on MSIE, they are likely to get a much longer window of opportunity before the holes are patched.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774114</id>
	<title>Re:It's not stupidity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263480240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"According to TFA, this vulnerability was in IE6."</p><p>TBH, I haven't read TFA.  If TFA says the vulnerability was in IE6 alone, then I think TFA errs.  I've read through 3 different related articles before seeing it come up here on slashdot.  The vulnerability is also in IE7 and IE8.  The fix is really simple - put your IE security settings up to maximum to prevent any DirectX from running, unless you specifically approve of it.</p><p>Of course, having your security settings on max is a real hassle.  On my XP virtual machine, when I download an executable, I'm asked/reminded 4 times that the file COULD BE malware.  That's a lot of time.  But, I don't change it.  Running an executable SHOULD be a minor pain.  Given the opportunity, I'd make everyone click through a half dozen warnings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" According to TFA , this vulnerability was in IE6 .
" TBH , I have n't read TFA .
If TFA says the vulnerability was in IE6 alone , then I think TFA errs .
I 've read through 3 different related articles before seeing it come up here on slashdot .
The vulnerability is also in IE7 and IE8 .
The fix is really simple - put your IE security settings up to maximum to prevent any DirectX from running , unless you specifically approve of it.Of course , having your security settings on max is a real hassle .
On my XP virtual machine , when I download an executable , I 'm asked/reminded 4 times that the file COULD BE malware .
That 's a lot of time .
But , I do n't change it .
Running an executable SHOULD be a minor pain .
Given the opportunity , I 'd make everyone click through a half dozen warnings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"According to TFA, this vulnerability was in IE6.
"TBH, I haven't read TFA.
If TFA says the vulnerability was in IE6 alone, then I think TFA errs.
I've read through 3 different related articles before seeing it come up here on slashdot.
The vulnerability is also in IE7 and IE8.
The fix is really simple - put your IE security settings up to maximum to prevent any DirectX from running, unless you specifically approve of it.Of course, having your security settings on max is a real hassle.
On my XP virtual machine, when I download an executable, I'm asked/reminded 4 times that the file COULD BE malware.
That's a lot of time.
But, I don't change it.
Running an executable SHOULD be a minor pain.
Given the opportunity, I'd make everyone click through a half dozen warnings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773666</id>
	<title>Re:Using Macs could have prevented this!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263477060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a reply to a -1 Redundant post about how using a Mac could have prevented this, but there's a critical <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/12/critical\_osx\_security\_bug/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">known flaw for Mac, iPhone, Apple TV, etc. that hasn't been fixed</a> [theregister.co.uk] for seven months now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a reply to a -1 Redundant post about how using a Mac could have prevented this , but there 's a critical known flaw for Mac , iPhone , Apple TV , etc .
that has n't been fixed [ theregister.co.uk ] for seven months now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a reply to a -1 Redundant post about how using a Mac could have prevented this, but there's a critical known flaw for Mac, iPhone, Apple TV, etc.
that hasn't been fixed [theregister.co.uk] for seven months now...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30780488</id>
	<title>Re:China is a major IT threat !</title>
	<author>sweatyboatman</author>
	<datestamp>1263578880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am fascinated by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's damn scary just how far the Chinese have wormed into the US corporate and military systems</p></div><p>That would be scary if I didn't think you were just making that up.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The reason they have not? It's not that they're scared of the US retaliating in kind - they clearly have the upper hand on that front. They need us to continue leeching our dollars and tech.</p></div><p>Orrr... the Chinese don't actually have the godlike capabilities you ascribe to them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am fascinated by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.It 's damn scary just how far the Chinese have wormed into the US corporate and military systemsThat would be scary if I did n't think you were just making that up.The reason they have not ?
It 's not that they 're scared of the US retaliating in kind - they clearly have the upper hand on that front .
They need us to continue leeching our dollars and tech.Orrr... the Chinese do n't actually have the godlike capabilities you ascribe to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am fascinated by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.It's damn scary just how far the Chinese have wormed into the US corporate and military systemsThat would be scary if I didn't think you were just making that up.The reason they have not?
It's not that they're scared of the US retaliating in kind - they clearly have the upper hand on that front.
They need us to continue leeching our dollars and tech.Orrr... the Chinese don't actually have the godlike capabilities you ascribe to them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30778234</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why are people at google using IE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263567300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Makes plenty of sense for any company doing web development.  If you want fully manage the end user experience, you must test your work with all of the most common browsers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Makes plenty of sense for any company doing web development .
If you want fully manage the end user experience , you must test your work with all of the most common browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Makes plenty of sense for any company doing web development.
If you want fully manage the end user experience, you must test your work with all of the most common browsers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30777160</id>
	<title>Re:Using Macs could have prevented this!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263557640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And that has been used by the Chinese to gain access to TV's all over the US?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that has been used by the Chinese to gain access to TV 's all over the US ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that has been used by the Chinese to gain access to TV's all over the US?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773880</id>
	<title>Re:A major security flaw in IE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263478320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE should really be called IB, for Internet Bumsplorer! LOL! On Linux it would be called IC, for Internet Cripple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE should really be called IB , for Internet Bumsplorer !
LOL ! On Linux it would be called IC , for Internet Cripple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE should really be called IB, for Internet Bumsplorer!
LOL! On Linux it would be called IC, for Internet Cripple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773454</id>
	<title>Using Macs could have prevented this!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263475980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where is your PC god NOW!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is your PC god NOW !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is your PC god NOW!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30790752</id>
	<title>Why did Google used IE?</title>
	<author>a2ms</author>
	<datestamp>1263661680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do everybody concentrates on blaming IE and Microsoft.. this attack was to Google.. and I thought they only hired smart people. And they even have their own BROWSER!! so why the hell was anybody using IE inside Google?

I mean if they need to test their things for IE that's alright, but browsing other stuff... then the idiot who did that should be punished...

Finally i get there were other vulnerabilities exploited, but this specific one shouldn't happen inside the "company that leads the future"...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do everybody concentrates on blaming IE and Microsoft.. this attack was to Google.. and I thought they only hired smart people .
And they even have their own BROWSER ! !
so why the hell was anybody using IE inside Google ?
I mean if they need to test their things for IE that 's alright , but browsing other stuff... then the idiot who did that should be punished.. . Finally i get there were other vulnerabilities exploited , but this specific one should n't happen inside the " company that leads the future " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do everybody concentrates on blaming IE and Microsoft.. this attack was to Google.. and I thought they only hired smart people.
And they even have their own BROWSER!!
so why the hell was anybody using IE inside Google?
I mean if they need to test their things for IE that's alright, but browsing other stuff... then the idiot who did that should be punished...

Finally i get there were other vulnerabilities exploited, but this specific one shouldn't happen inside the "company that leads the future"...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30778430</id>
	<title>Re:It's not stupidity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263568440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We don't use Sharepoint at Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't use Sharepoint at Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't use Sharepoint at Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774252</id>
	<title>Re:Attacks targeted IE6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263481320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The IT department at my company actually refuses to allow anything newer than IE 6 because of <i>security concerns</i>.  (Seriously.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The IT department at my company actually refuses to allow anything newer than IE 6 because of security concerns .
( Seriously. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The IT department at my company actually refuses to allow anything newer than IE 6 because of security concerns.
(Seriously.)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775914</id>
	<title>Re:A major security flaw in IE?</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1263498540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>One of the reasons for this is that the black hats are well aware that any vulnerability they might exploit is likely to be short-lived, while if they just focus on MSIE, they are likely to get a much longer window of opportunity before the holes are patched.</i> <br> <br>Not only does MSIE being "folded into" the OS make it more difficult to debug, Microsoft have also developed a policy of updates according to the calendar. Most other software tends to follow a "when needed" approach to bug fixes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the reasons for this is that the black hats are well aware that any vulnerability they might exploit is likely to be short-lived , while if they just focus on MSIE , they are likely to get a much longer window of opportunity before the holes are patched .
Not only does MSIE being " folded into " the OS make it more difficult to debug , Microsoft have also developed a policy of updates according to the calendar .
Most other software tends to follow a " when needed " approach to bug fixes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the reasons for this is that the black hats are well aware that any vulnerability they might exploit is likely to be short-lived, while if they just focus on MSIE, they are likely to get a much longer window of opportunity before the holes are patched.
Not only does MSIE being "folded into" the OS make it more difficult to debug, Microsoft have also developed a policy of updates according to the calendar.
Most other software tends to follow a "when needed" approach to bug fixes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774206</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why are people at google using IE?</title>
	<author>D H NG</author>
	<datestamp>1263480900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not all Google employees are engineers. About half of the employees use Goobuntu.  The rest use Windows and Macs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not all Google employees are engineers .
About half of the employees use Goobuntu .
The rest use Windows and Macs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not all Google employees are engineers.
About half of the employees use Goobuntu.
The rest use Windows and Macs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774598</id>
	<title>No way,</title>
	<author>Fengpost</author>
	<datestamp>1263483900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not a flaw but the built-in back door promised by MS to the gov't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a flaw but the built-in back door promised by MS to the gov't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a flaw but the built-in back door promised by MS to the gov't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30790454</id>
	<title>Re:It's not stupidity</title>
	<author>awitod</author>
	<datestamp>1263658860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whoever modded this offtopic should click the parent button. Does Slashdot still meta moderate?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoever modded this offtopic should click the parent button .
Does Slashdot still meta moderate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoever modded this offtopic should click the parent button.
Does Slashdot still meta moderate?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776528</id>
	<title>That's just wrong</title>
	<author>bytesex</author>
	<datestamp>1263549720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is the leaking of Google data dependent on a flaw in a browser ?  That doesn't sound an awful lot like defensive, secure programming on Google's side to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is the leaking of Google data dependent on a flaw in a browser ?
That does n't sound an awful lot like defensive , secure programming on Google 's side to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is the leaking of Google data dependent on a flaw in a browser ?
That doesn't sound an awful lot like defensive, secure programming on Google's side to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30792348</id>
	<title>Re:It's not stupidity</title>
	<author>myspace-cn</author>
	<datestamp>1263673380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"SharePoint 2010 does not fully support IE 6.0. It is a down-level browser. SharePoint 2010 does fully support FireFox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera.</p><p>Just thought you'd be happy to know."</p><p>And many local and state governments have rolled SharePoint out (even though their IT people don't even understand it, and the governments local and federal can't afford it!) and manage to use it for excuses like not posting their financial statements.  Or missing/broken linked pdf bill/legislation hell used as a time weapon against the public.</p><p>Do not believe me.</p><p>Find some<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gov and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.state SharePoint servers, and analyze the contents especially when it has to do with finance, the monetary system, or legislation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" SharePoint 2010 does not fully support IE 6.0 .
It is a down-level browser .
SharePoint 2010 does fully support FireFox , Chrome , Safari , and Opera.Just thought you 'd be happy to know .
" And many local and state governments have rolled SharePoint out ( even though their IT people do n't even understand it , and the governments local and federal ca n't afford it !
) and manage to use it for excuses like not posting their financial statements .
Or missing/broken linked pdf bill/legislation hell used as a time weapon against the public.Do not believe me.Find some .gov and .state SharePoint servers , and analyze the contents especially when it has to do with finance , the monetary system , or legislation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"SharePoint 2010 does not fully support IE 6.0.
It is a down-level browser.
SharePoint 2010 does fully support FireFox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera.Just thought you'd be happy to know.
"And many local and state governments have rolled SharePoint out (even though their IT people don't even understand it, and the governments local and federal can't afford it!
) and manage to use it for excuses like not posting their financial statements.
Or missing/broken linked pdf bill/legislation hell used as a time weapon against the public.Do not believe me.Find some .gov and .state SharePoint servers, and analyze the contents especially when it has to do with finance, the monetary system, or legislation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774864</id>
	<title>Re:Attacks targeted IE6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263486120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because they use firefox 100\% of the time until they hit a website that requires IE, then they make the mistake of using it before patching it?<br>I mean that's one reason, there's probably others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they use firefox 100 \ % of the time until they hit a website that requires IE , then they make the mistake of using it before patching it ? I mean that 's one reason , there 's probably others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they use firefox 100\% of the time until they hit a website that requires IE, then they make the mistake of using it before patching it?I mean that's one reason, there's probably others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775086</id>
	<title>DEP may have prevented, why do they disable?</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1263487980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a real mysterious thing for me since I enable DEP in all kinds of configurations, even including Virtual Machines. I use Windows mostly for critical/complex device driven things like phone firmware updates, backups which means dozens of drivers installed.</p><p>I also print via Bonjour under Windows, using a Airport USB shared Epson Laser printer which has a very complex driver.</p><p>There hasn't been a single issue I have seen regarding DEP being enabled for all programs. Even AntiVirus programs doesn't complain.</p><p>So, as we all know, some companies are "more equal" (look to Adobe/Carbon/OS X), which product likely prevents Microsoft from enabling it by default?</p><p>According to Wikipedia, Apple enabled DEP like technology back in OS X 10.4.0 days and nobody even noticed it. I am not seeing any mysterious crashes, performance issues even with software based DEP. So, why on earth DEP is defaulting to off?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a real mysterious thing for me since I enable DEP in all kinds of configurations , even including Virtual Machines .
I use Windows mostly for critical/complex device driven things like phone firmware updates , backups which means dozens of drivers installed.I also print via Bonjour under Windows , using a Airport USB shared Epson Laser printer which has a very complex driver.There has n't been a single issue I have seen regarding DEP being enabled for all programs .
Even AntiVirus programs does n't complain.So , as we all know , some companies are " more equal " ( look to Adobe/Carbon/OS X ) , which product likely prevents Microsoft from enabling it by default ? According to Wikipedia , Apple enabled DEP like technology back in OS X 10.4.0 days and nobody even noticed it .
I am not seeing any mysterious crashes , performance issues even with software based DEP .
So , why on earth DEP is defaulting to off ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a real mysterious thing for me since I enable DEP in all kinds of configurations, even including Virtual Machines.
I use Windows mostly for critical/complex device driven things like phone firmware updates, backups which means dozens of drivers installed.I also print via Bonjour under Windows, using a Airport USB shared Epson Laser printer which has a very complex driver.There hasn't been a single issue I have seen regarding DEP being enabled for all programs.
Even AntiVirus programs doesn't complain.So, as we all know, some companies are "more equal" (look to Adobe/Carbon/OS X), which product likely prevents Microsoft from enabling it by default?According to Wikipedia, Apple enabled DEP like technology back in OS X 10.4.0 days and nobody even noticed it.
I am not seeing any mysterious crashes, performance issues even with software based DEP.
So, why on earth DEP is defaulting to off?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773584</id>
	<title>More than just IE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263476640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you bother to RTFA (I must be new here, right?) you'll see that it wasn't JUST an IE zero-day that was used in the attack.</p><blockquote><div><p>"While we have identified the Internet Explorer vulnerability as one of the vectors of attack in this incident, many of these targeted attacks often involve a cocktail of zero-day vulnerabilities combined with sophisticated social engineering scenarios." - <a href="http://siblog.mcafee.com/cto/operation-\%E2\%80\%9Caurora\%E2\%80\%9D-hit-google-others/" title="mcafee.com" rel="nofollow">George Kurtz</a> [mcafee.com]</p></div> </blockquote><p>So IE is partially to blame, but you can't just say that this is MS's fault.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you bother to RTFA ( I must be new here , right ?
) you 'll see that it was n't JUST an IE zero-day that was used in the attack .
" While we have identified the Internet Explorer vulnerability as one of the vectors of attack in this incident , many of these targeted attacks often involve a cocktail of zero-day vulnerabilities combined with sophisticated social engineering scenarios .
" - George Kurtz [ mcafee.com ] So IE is partially to blame , but you ca n't just say that this is MS 's fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you bother to RTFA (I must be new here, right?
) you'll see that it wasn't JUST an IE zero-day that was used in the attack.
"While we have identified the Internet Explorer vulnerability as one of the vectors of attack in this incident, many of these targeted attacks often involve a cocktail of zero-day vulnerabilities combined with sophisticated social engineering scenarios.
" - George Kurtz [mcafee.com] So IE is partially to blame, but you can't just say that this is MS's fault.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773716</id>
	<title>Not PDFs?</title>
	<author>gumbo</author>
	<datestamp>1263477480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've heard that PDFs were used, and that's the one that sounds the most logical.  Whenever I've seen attacks against my network from the Chinese, it's always been in the form of malicious spear-phished PDFs.</p><p>Whatever they actually used against Google, there's not one easy solution.  You can't just say that they should have used Firefox, because then the attackers would have exploited some random Firefox add-on that some people were using.  I'm sure Google employees use every browser out there throughout the company.  Keeping Acrobat Reader fully patched and keeping your users alert and well-trained would probably stop a lot of it, but not all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard that PDFs were used , and that 's the one that sounds the most logical .
Whenever I 've seen attacks against my network from the Chinese , it 's always been in the form of malicious spear-phished PDFs.Whatever they actually used against Google , there 's not one easy solution .
You ca n't just say that they should have used Firefox , because then the attackers would have exploited some random Firefox add-on that some people were using .
I 'm sure Google employees use every browser out there throughout the company .
Keeping Acrobat Reader fully patched and keeping your users alert and well-trained would probably stop a lot of it , but not all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard that PDFs were used, and that's the one that sounds the most logical.
Whenever I've seen attacks against my network from the Chinese, it's always been in the form of malicious spear-phished PDFs.Whatever they actually used against Google, there's not one easy solution.
You can't just say that they should have used Firefox, because then the attackers would have exploited some random Firefox add-on that some people were using.
I'm sure Google employees use every browser out there throughout the company.
Keeping Acrobat Reader fully patched and keeping your users alert and well-trained would probably stop a lot of it, but not all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774530</id>
	<title>Oh, but it doesn't count, right?</title>
	<author>gillbates</author>
	<datestamp>1263483420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Because according to Microsoft, system vulnerability is determined by the following formula:
</p><p>
Vulnerability = (time of patch - time of discovery) * number of exploits.
</p><p>
Clearly, since the vulnerability was never publicly discovered, no patch was needed, right?  Clearly, since the exploit was never published, it was not a security risk, right?
</p><p>
For years, those outside the FOSS community behaved as if an unknown or undiscovered (or rather, unpublished) exploit was not a security vulnerability for the purposes of calculating risk.  Rather, we were led to believe, by MS and others, that only unpatched systems were vulnerable.  For years, I watched as countless IT folks repeated the mantra that a fully patched MS system was just as secure as any other.
</p><p>
It always seemed obvious to me, but apparently not to others, that risk should be calculated using not on the time of discovery and publication, but rather, upon the ship date of the software.  (i.e., a vulnerability discovered 3 years after ship date, but patched a month after discovery means your system was vulnerable for <b>39 months, instead of only one<b> as the MS method calculated vulnerability.</b></b>
</p><p>
I think Google is big enough that people will now recognize that system security is not just a matter of patch early, patch often, but also a characteristic of the entity behind the code.  Despite what Microsoft marketing would have you believe, the company can't produce a secure OS because they understand neither the problem, nor even the question.
</p><p>
The reason Linux is more secure than Windows is due not merely to the fact that it is open source, but also because those who work with UNIX understand the problem of system security.  It doesn't mean Linux is perfect, only that it fares much better from a total-risk perspective.  Microsoft never really grasped that security was a fundamental system design consideration, rather than a problem to be patched on the back-end of SW development.  While they have *tried* to address the security issues (and have been somewhat successful, but only due to their brute-force efforts), they still have a product-design mentality which places ship dates above system quality, and usability above overall security.  The fact that they still consider anti-virus software and constant patching a normal part of computing indicates they've failed to grasp the lessons learned of the past 3 decades.
</p><p>
For Microsoft, security is a checkbox feature, not a way of doing business.  Maybe, now that Google was compromised by a type of exploit Microsoft, et al, considered of minimal, if not zero, risk, the world will change its opinion of the acceptability of software requiring constant patches and add-on kludges (i.e. anti-virus sw) just to function normally.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because according to Microsoft , system vulnerability is determined by the following formula : Vulnerability = ( time of patch - time of discovery ) * number of exploits .
Clearly , since the vulnerability was never publicly discovered , no patch was needed , right ?
Clearly , since the exploit was never published , it was not a security risk , right ?
For years , those outside the FOSS community behaved as if an unknown or undiscovered ( or rather , unpublished ) exploit was not a security vulnerability for the purposes of calculating risk .
Rather , we were led to believe , by MS and others , that only unpatched systems were vulnerable .
For years , I watched as countless IT folks repeated the mantra that a fully patched MS system was just as secure as any other .
It always seemed obvious to me , but apparently not to others , that risk should be calculated using not on the time of discovery and publication , but rather , upon the ship date of the software .
( i.e. , a vulnerability discovered 3 years after ship date , but patched a month after discovery means your system was vulnerable for 39 months , instead of only one as the MS method calculated vulnerability .
I think Google is big enough that people will now recognize that system security is not just a matter of patch early , patch often , but also a characteristic of the entity behind the code .
Despite what Microsoft marketing would have you believe , the company ca n't produce a secure OS because they understand neither the problem , nor even the question .
The reason Linux is more secure than Windows is due not merely to the fact that it is open source , but also because those who work with UNIX understand the problem of system security .
It does n't mean Linux is perfect , only that it fares much better from a total-risk perspective .
Microsoft never really grasped that security was a fundamental system design consideration , rather than a problem to be patched on the back-end of SW development .
While they have * tried * to address the security issues ( and have been somewhat successful , but only due to their brute-force efforts ) , they still have a product-design mentality which places ship dates above system quality , and usability above overall security .
The fact that they still consider anti-virus software and constant patching a normal part of computing indicates they 've failed to grasp the lessons learned of the past 3 decades .
For Microsoft , security is a checkbox feature , not a way of doing business .
Maybe , now that Google was compromised by a type of exploit Microsoft , et al , considered of minimal , if not zero , risk , the world will change its opinion of the acceptability of software requiring constant patches and add-on kludges ( i.e .
anti-virus sw ) just to function normally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Because according to Microsoft, system vulnerability is determined by the following formula:

Vulnerability = (time of patch - time of discovery) * number of exploits.
Clearly, since the vulnerability was never publicly discovered, no patch was needed, right?
Clearly, since the exploit was never published, it was not a security risk, right?
For years, those outside the FOSS community behaved as if an unknown or undiscovered (or rather, unpublished) exploit was not a security vulnerability for the purposes of calculating risk.
Rather, we were led to believe, by MS and others, that only unpatched systems were vulnerable.
For years, I watched as countless IT folks repeated the mantra that a fully patched MS system was just as secure as any other.
It always seemed obvious to me, but apparently not to others, that risk should be calculated using not on the time of discovery and publication, but rather, upon the ship date of the software.
(i.e., a vulnerability discovered 3 years after ship date, but patched a month after discovery means your system was vulnerable for 39 months, instead of only one as the MS method calculated vulnerability.
I think Google is big enough that people will now recognize that system security is not just a matter of patch early, patch often, but also a characteristic of the entity behind the code.
Despite what Microsoft marketing would have you believe, the company can't produce a secure OS because they understand neither the problem, nor even the question.
The reason Linux is more secure than Windows is due not merely to the fact that it is open source, but also because those who work with UNIX understand the problem of system security.
It doesn't mean Linux is perfect, only that it fares much better from a total-risk perspective.
Microsoft never really grasped that security was a fundamental system design consideration, rather than a problem to be patched on the back-end of SW development.
While they have *tried* to address the security issues (and have been somewhat successful, but only due to their brute-force efforts), they still have a product-design mentality which places ship dates above system quality, and usability above overall security.
The fact that they still consider anti-virus software and constant patching a normal part of computing indicates they've failed to grasp the lessons learned of the past 3 decades.
For Microsoft, security is a checkbox feature, not a way of doing business.
Maybe, now that Google was compromised by a type of exploit Microsoft, et al, considered of minimal, if not zero, risk, the world will change its opinion of the acceptability of software requiring constant patches and add-on kludges (i.e.
anti-virus sw) just to function normally.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774480</id>
	<title>Re:No sign of vanishing</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1263483060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"I work at a big company that takes an enormous number of precautions to secure and protect the confidential information of millions of people. And we still use IE6 with no sign of changing any time soon."</p></div></blockquote><p>So basically your company has an enormous number of highly secured steel doors, but only three walls?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I work at a big company that takes an enormous number of precautions to secure and protect the confidential information of millions of people .
And we still use IE6 with no sign of changing any time soon .
" So basically your company has an enormous number of highly secured steel doors , but only three walls ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I work at a big company that takes an enormous number of precautions to secure and protect the confidential information of millions of people.
And we still use IE6 with no sign of changing any time soon.
"So basically your company has an enormous number of highly secured steel doors, but only three walls?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774078</id>
	<title>Re:More than just IE</title>
	<author>dclozier</author>
	<datestamp>1263480000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So IE is partially to blame, <b>but you can't just say that this is MS's fault</b>.</p></div></blockquote><p>
You really are new here. Of course it was all Microsoft's fault.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So IE is partially to blame , but you ca n't just say that this is MS 's fault .
You really are new here .
Of course it was all Microsoft 's fault .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So IE is partially to blame, but you can't just say that this is MS's fault.
You really are new here.
Of course it was all Microsoft's fault.
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775062</id>
	<title>Re:Attacks targeted IE6</title>
	<author>thejynxed</author>
	<datestamp>1263487740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They need to be fired. Then hanged, drawn, and quartered in the nearest town square.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They need to be fired .
Then hanged , drawn , and quartered in the nearest town square .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They need to be fired.
Then hanged, drawn, and quartered in the nearest town square.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773918</id>
	<title>Re:A major security flaw in IE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263478680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, there are major flaws in all browsers all the time, they're really complicated software and are the most exposed part of the computer at the moment, so lots of research is put into finding flaws.</p><p>The two continuing problems are:<br>1) The use of old versions. IE 6 sucks. No way around it.  IE 7 sucks less, and IE 8 has a mix of good and bad things.<br>2) The time between updates.  Some known IE bugs go patched for a long time, with about a 1 month minimum exploitation window, and often quite a bit longer.  FF and especially Chrome are MUCH better about pushing out patches and getting their users to upgrade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , there are major flaws in all browsers all the time , they 're really complicated software and are the most exposed part of the computer at the moment , so lots of research is put into finding flaws.The two continuing problems are : 1 ) The use of old versions .
IE 6 sucks .
No way around it .
IE 7 sucks less , and IE 8 has a mix of good and bad things.2 ) The time between updates .
Some known IE bugs go patched for a long time , with about a 1 month minimum exploitation window , and often quite a bit longer .
FF and especially Chrome are MUCH better about pushing out patches and getting their users to upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, there are major flaws in all browsers all the time, they're really complicated software and are the most exposed part of the computer at the moment, so lots of research is put into finding flaws.The two continuing problems are:1) The use of old versions.
IE 6 sucks.
No way around it.
IE 7 sucks less, and IE 8 has a mix of good and bad things.2) The time between updates.
Some known IE bugs go patched for a long time, with about a 1 month minimum exploitation window, and often quite a bit longer.
FF and especially Chrome are MUCH better about pushing out patches and getting their users to upgrade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775202</id>
	<title>Re:Not PDFs?</title>
	<author>TropicalCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1263489360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I've heard that PDFs were used</p></div></blockquote><p>What a droll thing to say! Would you mind sharing with us where exactly you heard that? The FA just ruled Adobe out on this occasion. What is your motivation for pointing the finger at Adobe? The FA says IE is to blame. Somehow you know more than Google about this? Your conclusion, "Keeping Acrobat Reader fully patched and keeping your users alert and well-trained would probably stop a lot of it, but not all." completely misses the point. The problem was IE. I would like to know what idiot modded you insightful. The most obvious conclusion we could draw is to stay away from IE - at least until it is fixed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard that PDFs were usedWhat a droll thing to say !
Would you mind sharing with us where exactly you heard that ?
The FA just ruled Adobe out on this occasion .
What is your motivation for pointing the finger at Adobe ?
The FA says IE is to blame .
Somehow you know more than Google about this ?
Your conclusion , " Keeping Acrobat Reader fully patched and keeping your users alert and well-trained would probably stop a lot of it , but not all .
" completely misses the point .
The problem was IE .
I would like to know what idiot modded you insightful .
The most obvious conclusion we could draw is to stay away from IE - at least until it is fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard that PDFs were usedWhat a droll thing to say!
Would you mind sharing with us where exactly you heard that?
The FA just ruled Adobe out on this occasion.
What is your motivation for pointing the finger at Adobe?
The FA says IE is to blame.
Somehow you know more than Google about this?
Your conclusion, "Keeping Acrobat Reader fully patched and keeping your users alert and well-trained would probably stop a lot of it, but not all.
" completely misses the point.
The problem was IE.
I would like to know what idiot modded you insightful.
The most obvious conclusion we could draw is to stay away from IE - at least until it is fixed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774508</id>
	<title>Re:A major security flaw in IE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263483240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>browsers... are really complicated software</p></div><p>Uh, no, not really. It is not that difficult to manage the standard Internet protocols, nor is that hard to construct a DOM and render from it. Add a plugin interface for all the other stuff and you've still got a basically simple browser, that you can make as complex as you need or want.

</p><p>I think you might be looking at IE as a sample of one, and extrapolating incorrectly from there. IE was designed intentionally to be a core part of the OS, in order to get around a court decision that MS didn't like. By folding it into the OS rather than running it as an application on top of the OS, MS introduced a lot of complexity... and a lot of potential security flaws. It also did not help that until IEv7, MS had deliberately built incompatibilities into IE (the broken box model for one). Although MS may be on the right course since IEv7, it still has to support all the legacy crap, including the non-browser functions that were put on IE (such as help system support, and IIRC some interprocess communications).

</p><p>Perhaps the basic problem with Microsoft is that Marketing has always told Engineering what to do. That is the short route to crapware, but it is also the inside track to the fat markets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>browsers... are really complicated softwareUh , no , not really .
It is not that difficult to manage the standard Internet protocols , nor is that hard to construct a DOM and render from it .
Add a plugin interface for all the other stuff and you 've still got a basically simple browser , that you can make as complex as you need or want .
I think you might be looking at IE as a sample of one , and extrapolating incorrectly from there .
IE was designed intentionally to be a core part of the OS , in order to get around a court decision that MS did n't like .
By folding it into the OS rather than running it as an application on top of the OS , MS introduced a lot of complexity... and a lot of potential security flaws .
It also did not help that until IEv7 , MS had deliberately built incompatibilities into IE ( the broken box model for one ) .
Although MS may be on the right course since IEv7 , it still has to support all the legacy crap , including the non-browser functions that were put on IE ( such as help system support , and IIRC some interprocess communications ) .
Perhaps the basic problem with Microsoft is that Marketing has always told Engineering what to do .
That is the short route to crapware , but it is also the inside track to the fat markets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>browsers... are really complicated softwareUh, no, not really.
It is not that difficult to manage the standard Internet protocols, nor is that hard to construct a DOM and render from it.
Add a plugin interface for all the other stuff and you've still got a basically simple browser, that you can make as complex as you need or want.
I think you might be looking at IE as a sample of one, and extrapolating incorrectly from there.
IE was designed intentionally to be a core part of the OS, in order to get around a court decision that MS didn't like.
By folding it into the OS rather than running it as an application on top of the OS, MS introduced a lot of complexity... and a lot of potential security flaws.
It also did not help that until IEv7, MS had deliberately built incompatibilities into IE (the broken box model for one).
Although MS may be on the right course since IEv7, it still has to support all the legacy crap, including the non-browser functions that were put on IE (such as help system support, and IIRC some interprocess communications).
Perhaps the basic problem with Microsoft is that Marketing has always told Engineering what to do.
That is the short route to crapware, but it is also the inside track to the fat markets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776734</id>
	<title>Re:Attacks targeted IE6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263552420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>why are people at these companies using IE6?</p></div><p>An example is a here to be unnamed Swedish bank that on their intra-net have some IE proprietary crap from -99 the estimated cost to get this up to date is 21 million USD. Good luck getting the bean counters approving this expense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>why are people at these companies using IE6 ? An example is a here to be unnamed Swedish bank that on their intra-net have some IE proprietary crap from -99 the estimated cost to get this up to date is 21 million USD .
Good luck getting the bean counters approving this expense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why are people at these companies using IE6?An example is a here to be unnamed Swedish bank that on their intra-net have some IE proprietary crap from -99 the estimated cost to get this up to date is 21 million USD.
Good luck getting the bean counters approving this expense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774054</id>
	<title>Re:Using Macs could have prevented this!</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1263479820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you mean mac's??</htmltext>
<tokenext>you mean mac 's ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you mean mac's?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775806</id>
	<title>Re:Attacks targeted IE6</title>
	<author>westyvw</author>
	<datestamp>1263496560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bigger question is: they can see the pain IE6 is causing them through lock-in, yet they think their next salvation is to write apps using Silverlight?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bigger question is : they can see the pain IE6 is causing them through lock-in , yet they think their next salvation is to write apps using Silverlight ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bigger question is: they can see the pain IE6 is causing them through lock-in, yet they think their next salvation is to write apps using Silverlight?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773768</id>
	<title>Um, why are people at google using IE?</title>
	<author>Trailer Trash</author>
	<datestamp>1263477840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously - makes no sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously - makes no sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously - makes no sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774830</id>
	<title>Re:It's not stupidity</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1263485820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this day and age it should be possible to run a bit of software inside a box from which it will <b>never</b> escape. Its very simple. No socket connections. No file system access. No shared me memory access. Run it inside a VM then delete the VM. I am not aware of any clean, simple implementations which just do this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this day and age it should be possible to run a bit of software inside a box from which it will never escape .
Its very simple .
No socket connections .
No file system access .
No shared me memory access .
Run it inside a VM then delete the VM .
I am not aware of any clean , simple implementations which just do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this day and age it should be possible to run a bit of software inside a box from which it will never escape.
Its very simple.
No socket connections.
No file system access.
No shared me memory access.
Run it inside a VM then delete the VM.
I am not aware of any clean, simple implementations which just do this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774642</id>
	<title>what about companies ?</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1263484380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the Chinese dare do it quasi-officially, I dare not think about the amount of corporate espionage that uses the same tools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the Chinese dare do it quasi-officially , I dare not think about the amount of corporate espionage that uses the same tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the Chinese dare do it quasi-officially, I dare not think about the amount of corporate espionage that uses the same tools.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30777656</id>
	<title>Re:A major security flaw in IE?</title>
	<author>stevey</author>
	<datestamp>1263563100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Inconceivable!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Inconceivable !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Inconceivable!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773804</id>
	<title>Re:More than just IE</title>
	<author>Seakip18</author>
	<datestamp>1263478020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.</p><p>The attacks were targeted against specific folks, those whose computers were targeted for being compromised. "Spear Phishing"(dang that sounds stupid) is what it resolved around, they just happened to use a few zero-exploits to carry it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly.The attacks were targeted against specific folks , those whose computers were targeted for being compromised .
" Spear Phishing " ( dang that sounds stupid ) is what it resolved around , they just happened to use a few zero-exploits to carry it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.The attacks were targeted against specific folks, those whose computers were targeted for being compromised.
"Spear Phishing"(dang that sounds stupid) is what it resolved around, they just happened to use a few zero-exploits to carry it out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774792</id>
	<title>Re:A major security flaw in IE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263485460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh really? Tracing JIT JavaScript interpreters are trivial? Parsing PNG, GIF, JPEG, SVG, and even more image formats is trivial? The rules for the same origin policy including inheritance to iframes and the like, cross domain access, content encoding, proxies, plugins, memory management, not to mention multiple tabs with concurrent access to all these things.. All these are all trivial to you? Man, I'd use your browser in a second, because no one else can manage the complexity.  The standards are nice as far as they go, but not complete and there's lots of legacy crap out there.  HTML 5 does codify better parsing behavior and other thigns that have been missing for the standard, but still doesn't cover everything.</p><p>For a very quick overview that just grazes the surface on how hard this stuff is, see the <a href="http://code.google.com/p/browsersec/wiki/Main" title="google.com">Browser Security Handbook</a> [google.com] by Michal Zalewski.</p><p>Firefox lists 35 security flaws in Firefox 3.5 alone, and that's only been out since June.</p><p>Yes, ActiveX is/was/will be a bad idea, but at least it requires a click through now, and runs with DEP in IE 8.  Plugins have the same problems on native code for Firefox and the other browsers too, now that Firefox has market share starting to see a rise in plugins and security flaws there instead.</p><p>Now, I'm not a Windows or IE fanboy, actually I hate the darn thing and run Firefox most of the time.  But I do break web software for a living, and know how complex this stuff is and how nobody has it right.  Both IE and Chrome have added some interesting security features lately to help contain flaws when they do occur, but nobody has yet written perfect software and there will continue to be security flaws in all browsers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh really ?
Tracing JIT JavaScript interpreters are trivial ?
Parsing PNG , GIF , JPEG , SVG , and even more image formats is trivial ?
The rules for the same origin policy including inheritance to iframes and the like , cross domain access , content encoding , proxies , plugins , memory management , not to mention multiple tabs with concurrent access to all these things.. All these are all trivial to you ?
Man , I 'd use your browser in a second , because no one else can manage the complexity .
The standards are nice as far as they go , but not complete and there 's lots of legacy crap out there .
HTML 5 does codify better parsing behavior and other thigns that have been missing for the standard , but still does n't cover everything.For a very quick overview that just grazes the surface on how hard this stuff is , see the Browser Security Handbook [ google.com ] by Michal Zalewski.Firefox lists 35 security flaws in Firefox 3.5 alone , and that 's only been out since June.Yes , ActiveX is/was/will be a bad idea , but at least it requires a click through now , and runs with DEP in IE 8 .
Plugins have the same problems on native code for Firefox and the other browsers too , now that Firefox has market share starting to see a rise in plugins and security flaws there instead.Now , I 'm not a Windows or IE fanboy , actually I hate the darn thing and run Firefox most of the time .
But I do break web software for a living , and know how complex this stuff is and how nobody has it right .
Both IE and Chrome have added some interesting security features lately to help contain flaws when they do occur , but nobody has yet written perfect software and there will continue to be security flaws in all browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh really?
Tracing JIT JavaScript interpreters are trivial?
Parsing PNG, GIF, JPEG, SVG, and even more image formats is trivial?
The rules for the same origin policy including inheritance to iframes and the like, cross domain access, content encoding, proxies, plugins, memory management, not to mention multiple tabs with concurrent access to all these things.. All these are all trivial to you?
Man, I'd use your browser in a second, because no one else can manage the complexity.
The standards are nice as far as they go, but not complete and there's lots of legacy crap out there.
HTML 5 does codify better parsing behavior and other thigns that have been missing for the standard, but still doesn't cover everything.For a very quick overview that just grazes the surface on how hard this stuff is, see the Browser Security Handbook [google.com] by Michal Zalewski.Firefox lists 35 security flaws in Firefox 3.5 alone, and that's only been out since June.Yes, ActiveX is/was/will be a bad idea, but at least it requires a click through now, and runs with DEP in IE 8.
Plugins have the same problems on native code for Firefox and the other browsers too, now that Firefox has market share starting to see a rise in plugins and security flaws there instead.Now, I'm not a Windows or IE fanboy, actually I hate the darn thing and run Firefox most of the time.
But I do break web software for a living, and know how complex this stuff is and how nobody has it right.
Both IE and Chrome have added some interesting security features lately to help contain flaws when they do occur, but nobody has yet written perfect software and there will continue to be security flaws in all browsers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776170</id>
	<title>DEP setting in IE?</title>
	<author>Askmum</author>
	<datestamp>1263588300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In an advisory, Microsoft recommended people use DEP, which by default is enabled
in IE 8 but must be turned on in prior versions.</p> </div><p>To my knowledge, DEP is a setting in Windows, not in IE. Does Microsoft not know it's own product or is this some different setting?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In an advisory , Microsoft recommended people use DEP , which by default is enabled in IE 8 but must be turned on in prior versions .
To my knowledge , DEP is a setting in Windows , not in IE .
Does Microsoft not know it 's own product or is this some different setting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In an advisory, Microsoft recommended people use DEP, which by default is enabled
in IE 8 but must be turned on in prior versions.
To my knowledge, DEP is a setting in Windows, not in IE.
Does Microsoft not know it's own product or is this some different setting?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774326</id>
	<title>China is a major IT threat !</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1263481800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make no mistake, China is agressively attacking foreign systems and common software.  They are stockpiling these zero-day exploits as potential weapons.  They use one until it's discovered and patched, then wait until they have another high priority and then unwrap the next one.</p><p>When you see Symantec or Microsoft reporting an "undisclosed source" on new vulnerabilities, it's usually our own government that reported it after investigating a compromise.  It's damn scary just how far the Chinese have wormed into the US corporate and military systems.  For now they are content to quietly steal data and technology, but we're in deep shit if China decides to turn malicious.  They have the power to level the US financial systems, military supply lines, utilities, etc which would quickly ruin the US.  The reason they have not?  It's not that they're scared of the US retaliating in kind - they clearly have the upper hand on that front.  They need us to continue leeching our dollars and tech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make no mistake , China is agressively attacking foreign systems and common software .
They are stockpiling these zero-day exploits as potential weapons .
They use one until it 's discovered and patched , then wait until they have another high priority and then unwrap the next one.When you see Symantec or Microsoft reporting an " undisclosed source " on new vulnerabilities , it 's usually our own government that reported it after investigating a compromise .
It 's damn scary just how far the Chinese have wormed into the US corporate and military systems .
For now they are content to quietly steal data and technology , but we 're in deep shit if China decides to turn malicious .
They have the power to level the US financial systems , military supply lines , utilities , etc which would quickly ruin the US .
The reason they have not ?
It 's not that they 're scared of the US retaliating in kind - they clearly have the upper hand on that front .
They need us to continue leeching our dollars and tech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make no mistake, China is agressively attacking foreign systems and common software.
They are stockpiling these zero-day exploits as potential weapons.
They use one until it's discovered and patched, then wait until they have another high priority and then unwrap the next one.When you see Symantec or Microsoft reporting an "undisclosed source" on new vulnerabilities, it's usually our own government that reported it after investigating a compromise.
It's damn scary just how far the Chinese have wormed into the US corporate and military systems.
For now they are content to quietly steal data and technology, but we're in deep shit if China decides to turn malicious.
They have the power to level the US financial systems, military supply lines, utilities, etc which would quickly ruin the US.
The reason they have not?
It's not that they're scared of the US retaliating in kind - they clearly have the upper hand on that front.
They need us to continue leeching our dollars and tech.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775432</id>
	<title>Re:No sign of vanishing</title>
	<author>MartinSchou</author>
	<datestamp>1263491940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They probably have plenty of walls. It's just a shame when the walls surrounding the heavy steel doors are made of rice paper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They probably have plenty of walls .
It 's just a shame when the walls surrounding the heavy steel doors are made of rice paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They probably have plenty of walls.
It's just a shame when the walls surrounding the heavy steel doors are made of rice paper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776546</id>
	<title>Bullshit</title>
	<author>eulernet</author>
	<datestamp>1263549900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a lot of unverifiable assumptions in the article, and I cannot see how the 3 things are linked here: Google/China/IE 0day ?</p><p>Frankly, do you believe Google uses IE or even Windows ?<br>And what kind of sites are infected with this 0day flaw ?<br>Sure, if the employees surf for porn or warez, they should be blamed.</p><p>Also, if I were the chinese government, there is an easier way to infect computers: insider employees.<br>They can simply plug an USB key and infect the computers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a lot of unverifiable assumptions in the article , and I can not see how the 3 things are linked here : Google/China/IE 0day ? Frankly , do you believe Google uses IE or even Windows ? And what kind of sites are infected with this 0day flaw ? Sure , if the employees surf for porn or warez , they should be blamed.Also , if I were the chinese government , there is an easier way to infect computers : insider employees.They can simply plug an USB key and infect the computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a lot of unverifiable assumptions in the article, and I cannot see how the 3 things are linked here: Google/China/IE 0day ?Frankly, do you believe Google uses IE or even Windows ?And what kind of sites are infected with this 0day flaw ?Sure, if the employees surf for porn or warez, they should be blamed.Also, if I were the chinese government, there is an easier way to infect computers: insider employees.They can simply plug an USB key and infect the computers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30778826</id>
	<title>Re:You know what this means</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263570360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google does directly benefit from firefox.. Remember that whole default search setting?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google does directly benefit from firefox.. Remember that whole default search setting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google does directly benefit from firefox.. Remember that whole default search setting?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773452</id>
	<title>A major security flaw in IE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263475980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is unheard of!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is unheard of !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is unheard of!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776382</id>
	<title>Re:You know what this means</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263548100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Clearly instead of (or at least as well as) pulling out of China, Google should stop supporting MSIE.</p></div><p>That would be awesome. However, imagine if it backfired and everybody started using Bing instead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly instead of ( or at least as well as ) pulling out of China , Google should stop supporting MSIE.That would be awesome .
However , imagine if it backfired and everybody started using Bing instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly instead of (or at least as well as) pulling out of China, Google should stop supporting MSIE.That would be awesome.
However, imagine if it backfired and everybody started using Bing instead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776250</id>
	<title>Re:Attacks targeted IE6</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1263546240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>why are people at these companies using IE6?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
1. unsigned executables display warning if executed from UNC shares.
<br>
2. primary browser is Firefox
<br>
3. person, who makes decision about installing ie7-8, does not trust company, which pushes spyware and new program versions as security updates.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>why are people at these companies using IE6 ?
1. unsigned executables display warning if executed from UNC shares .
2. primary browser is Firefox 3. person , who makes decision about installing ie7-8 , does not trust company , which pushes spyware and new program versions as security updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why are people at these companies using IE6?
1. unsigned executables display warning if executed from UNC shares.
2. primary browser is Firefox

3. person, who makes decision about installing ie7-8, does not trust company, which pushes spyware and new program versions as security updates.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774378</id>
	<title>Re:You know what this means</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263482280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When Ballmer said he was going to "f*ck!ng kill Google," you all just laughed (and dodged the occasional chair.)</p><p>But who's laughing now, Sergei?  Who's laughing now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Ballmer said he was going to " f * ck ! ng kill Google , " you all just laughed ( and dodged the occasional chair .
) But who 's laughing now , Sergei ?
Who 's laughing now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Ballmer said he was going to "f*ck!ng kill Google," you all just laughed (and dodged the occasional chair.
)But who's laughing now, Sergei?
Who's laughing now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775796</id>
	<title>Re:A major security flaw in IE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263496500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually this continuing problem affects IE7 and IE8

So your list is doesn't really fit this issue in the least.

1) The use of IE sucks. No way around it.
2) This looks like yet another ActiveX issue.  Who would have ever guessed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually this continuing problem affects IE7 and IE8 So your list is does n't really fit this issue in the least .
1 ) The use of IE sucks .
No way around it .
2 ) This looks like yet another ActiveX issue .
Who would have ever guessed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually this continuing problem affects IE7 and IE8

So your list is doesn't really fit this issue in the least.
1) The use of IE sucks.
No way around it.
2) This looks like yet another ActiveX issue.
Who would have ever guessed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775280</id>
	<title>Re:More than just IE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263490200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So IE is partially to blame, but you can't just say that this is MS's fault.</p></div><p>The stupid that choose IE for their corporation is to blame.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So IE is partially to blame , but you ca n't just say that this is MS 's fault.The stupid that choose IE for their corporation is to blame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So IE is partially to blame, but you can't just say that this is MS's fault.The stupid that choose IE for their corporation is to blame.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774786</id>
	<title>I really doubt it</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1263485460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that they got access to the source, that is unsurprising, MS shares their source with governments, universities, and so on. However I doubt the Chinese scoured the IE code to find security flaws.</p><p>You find that for major projects, security flaws are most often not found looking through the source, but rather testing against a running program. Why? Well because there were always a bunch of skilled programmers that looked at the source, and they didn't see anything. As such, it isn't so likely you'll see anything. It isn't as though there'll be a function that says allowExploit() in there. The bugs are there precisely because they are hard to see, they require the interaction of individual units in unexpected ways.</p><p>This is why you'll find that even major OSS projects get hit. BIND is a good example. Back in about 2000 there was a security hole in it that affected every version ever. Somehow, it had been in there and nobody had noticed it. It was found not by a code audit, but by messing with a running DNS server and it doing something unexpected. Once the problem was found, then the programmers could figure out where to look and fixed it quickly.</p><p>Well you have to remember that the MS code is highly audited. MS has lots of skilled programmers who work on it, and it also goes to other places, like universities and such, that look over it.</p><p>My bet is that this was discovered on a running copy of IE. They were either doing security testing, or perhaps just stumbled across it by accident.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that they got access to the source , that is unsurprising , MS shares their source with governments , universities , and so on .
However I doubt the Chinese scoured the IE code to find security flaws.You find that for major projects , security flaws are most often not found looking through the source , but rather testing against a running program .
Why ? Well because there were always a bunch of skilled programmers that looked at the source , and they did n't see anything .
As such , it is n't so likely you 'll see anything .
It is n't as though there 'll be a function that says allowExploit ( ) in there .
The bugs are there precisely because they are hard to see , they require the interaction of individual units in unexpected ways.This is why you 'll find that even major OSS projects get hit .
BIND is a good example .
Back in about 2000 there was a security hole in it that affected every version ever .
Somehow , it had been in there and nobody had noticed it .
It was found not by a code audit , but by messing with a running DNS server and it doing something unexpected .
Once the problem was found , then the programmers could figure out where to look and fixed it quickly.Well you have to remember that the MS code is highly audited .
MS has lots of skilled programmers who work on it , and it also goes to other places , like universities and such , that look over it.My bet is that this was discovered on a running copy of IE .
They were either doing security testing , or perhaps just stumbled across it by accident .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that they got access to the source, that is unsurprising, MS shares their source with governments, universities, and so on.
However I doubt the Chinese scoured the IE code to find security flaws.You find that for major projects, security flaws are most often not found looking through the source, but rather testing against a running program.
Why? Well because there were always a bunch of skilled programmers that looked at the source, and they didn't see anything.
As such, it isn't so likely you'll see anything.
It isn't as though there'll be a function that says allowExploit() in there.
The bugs are there precisely because they are hard to see, they require the interaction of individual units in unexpected ways.This is why you'll find that even major OSS projects get hit.
BIND is a good example.
Back in about 2000 there was a security hole in it that affected every version ever.
Somehow, it had been in there and nobody had noticed it.
It was found not by a code audit, but by messing with a running DNS server and it doing something unexpected.
Once the problem was found, then the programmers could figure out where to look and fixed it quickly.Well you have to remember that the MS code is highly audited.
MS has lots of skilled programmers who work on it, and it also goes to other places, like universities and such, that look over it.My bet is that this was discovered on a running copy of IE.
They were either doing security testing, or perhaps just stumbled across it by accident.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776218</id>
	<title>Re:Attacks targeted IE6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263588900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because of intranet apps that only work with IE6.</p><p>Then again, that raises the question why Microsoft doesn't simply forcefully auto-update IE6/7 to at least IE8, and provide an easily installable VirtualPC package with IE6 for those who need to use intranet apps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because of intranet apps that only work with IE6.Then again , that raises the question why Microsoft does n't simply forcefully auto-update IE6/7 to at least IE8 , and provide an easily installable VirtualPC package with IE6 for those who need to use intranet apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because of intranet apps that only work with IE6.Then again, that raises the question why Microsoft doesn't simply forcefully auto-update IE6/7 to at least IE8, and provide an easily installable VirtualPC package with IE6 for those who need to use intranet apps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776494</id>
	<title>Re:China is a major IT threat !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263549300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't be daft, China already owns a large chunk of the US and won't want to hurt its investment.</p><p>You can't have a national debt without someone doing the lending.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be daft , China already owns a large chunk of the US and wo n't want to hurt its investment.You ca n't have a national debt without someone doing the lending .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be daft, China already owns a large chunk of the US and won't want to hurt its investment.You can't have a national debt without someone doing the lending.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776752</id>
	<title>Re:A major security flaw in IE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263552540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, but most of the IE patches (and Windows patches for that matter) that I've received were related to the kind of memory management problems that were solved in 1995.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but most of the IE patches ( and Windows patches for that matter ) that I 've received were related to the kind of memory management problems that were solved in 1995 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but most of the IE patches (and Windows patches for that matter) that I've received were related to the kind of memory management problems that were solved in 1995.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776158</id>
	<title>And in other news...</title>
	<author>Donkey\_Hotey</author>
	<datestamp>1263588180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>McAfee has just announced their latest product, <i>Sino-Cyber Protection Suite</i>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>McAfee has just announced their latest product , Sino-Cyber Protection Suite.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>McAfee has just announced their latest product, Sino-Cyber Protection Suite...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774762</id>
	<title>Re:A major security flaw in IE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263485280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been using IE for years and my computer has never been hacked once. On the other hand people keep breaking into my bank account, web mail, and stealing my card information. Man, I just wish someone would protect those things like IE protects my computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using IE for years and my computer has never been hacked once .
On the other hand people keep breaking into my bank account , web mail , and stealing my card information .
Man , I just wish someone would protect those things like IE protects my computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using IE for years and my computer has never been hacked once.
On the other hand people keep breaking into my bank account, web mail, and stealing my card information.
Man, I just wish someone would protect those things like IE protects my computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774552</id>
	<title>Re:Using Macs could have prevented this!</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1263483540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm. yeah, the problem is that you can't (easily) uninstall IE.. and Acrobat Reader can be convinced to embed it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm .
yeah , the problem is that you ca n't ( easily ) uninstall IE.. and Acrobat Reader can be convinced to embed it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm.
yeah, the problem is that you can't (easily) uninstall IE.. and Acrobat Reader can be convinced to embed it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30779314</id>
	<title>Re:You know what this means</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1263573300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, everyone would just switch to another search engine.</p><p>I prefer Google myself, but the instant they tell me I can't use a specific browser is the instant I start using someone else.  Its already annoying enough that they put the retarded 'try chrome' on the main page if you aren't using Chrome.</p><p>Not really sure how not supporting the competitions product, <strong>intentionally</strong> would help with anti-trust issues.  Thats a very non-intuitive statement that I hope you have some sort of statement to back it up with, otherwise it seems just flat out illogical and wrong to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , everyone would just switch to another search engine.I prefer Google myself , but the instant they tell me I ca n't use a specific browser is the instant I start using someone else .
Its already annoying enough that they put the retarded 'try chrome ' on the main page if you are n't using Chrome.Not really sure how not supporting the competitions product , intentionally would help with anti-trust issues .
Thats a very non-intuitive statement that I hope you have some sort of statement to back it up with , otherwise it seems just flat out illogical and wrong to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, everyone would just switch to another search engine.I prefer Google myself, but the instant they tell me I can't use a specific browser is the instant I start using someone else.
Its already annoying enough that they put the retarded 'try chrome' on the main page if you aren't using Chrome.Not really sure how not supporting the competitions product, intentionally would help with anti-trust issues.
Thats a very non-intuitive statement that I hope you have some sort of statement to back it up with, otherwise it seems just flat out illogical and wrong to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773874</id>
	<title>Re:Using Macs could have prevented this!</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1263478320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or any other browser. Like, for example, Chrome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or any other browser .
Like , for example , Chrome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or any other browser.
Like, for example, Chrome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30779508</id>
	<title>"Trust Me"</title>
	<author>Hasai</author>
	<datestamp>1263574320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....Nope; Windows 7 isn't going to have any of the problems that any of the previous Windows versions had. Nope-nope-nope....</p><p><a href="http://movies.apple.com/media/us/mac/getamac/2009/apple-mvp-broken\_promises-us-20091023\_480x272.mov" title="apple.com">http://movies.apple.com/media/us/mac/getamac/2009/apple-mvp-broken\_promises-us-20091023\_480x272.mov</a> [apple.com]</p><p>(Mad cackling ensues....)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....Nope ; Windows 7 is n't going to have any of the problems that any of the previous Windows versions had .
Nope-nope-nope....http : //movies.apple.com/media/us/mac/getamac/2009/apple-mvp-broken \ _promises-us-20091023 \ _480x272.mov [ apple.com ] ( Mad cackling ensues.... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....Nope; Windows 7 isn't going to have any of the problems that any of the previous Windows versions had.
Nope-nope-nope....http://movies.apple.com/media/us/mac/getamac/2009/apple-mvp-broken\_promises-us-20091023\_480x272.mov [apple.com](Mad cackling ensues....)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773952</id>
	<title>Re:It's not stupidity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263478980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>According to TFA, this vulnerability was in IE6.</em></p><p>No, only IE 5.01 SP4 and IE 8 are not vulnerable without enabling "data execution prevention."  The attackers apparently targeted IE 6, but nearly all other versions can be compromised.</p><p>From TFA:</p><p>"A security feature known as data execution prevention, which prevents data loaded into memory from being executed, will block the particular exploits McAfee has observed. But Kurtz warned the vulnerability exists in all versions of IE except for IE 5.01, service pack 4, and that it would be possible for attackers to work around the protection.</p><p>In an advisory, Microsoft recommended people use DEP, which by default is enabled in IE 8 but must be turned on in prior versions. The statement also advised users on Vista and later versions of Windows to run IE in protected mode. The advisory didn't say when an update would be released that patches the vulnerability."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to TFA , this vulnerability was in IE6.No , only IE 5.01 SP4 and IE 8 are not vulnerable without enabling " data execution prevention .
" The attackers apparently targeted IE 6 , but nearly all other versions can be compromised.From TFA : " A security feature known as data execution prevention , which prevents data loaded into memory from being executed , will block the particular exploits McAfee has observed .
But Kurtz warned the vulnerability exists in all versions of IE except for IE 5.01 , service pack 4 , and that it would be possible for attackers to work around the protection.In an advisory , Microsoft recommended people use DEP , which by default is enabled in IE 8 but must be turned on in prior versions .
The statement also advised users on Vista and later versions of Windows to run IE in protected mode .
The advisory did n't say when an update would be released that patches the vulnerability .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to TFA, this vulnerability was in IE6.No, only IE 5.01 SP4 and IE 8 are not vulnerable without enabling "data execution prevention.
"  The attackers apparently targeted IE 6, but nearly all other versions can be compromised.From TFA:"A security feature known as data execution prevention, which prevents data loaded into memory from being executed, will block the particular exploits McAfee has observed.
But Kurtz warned the vulnerability exists in all versions of IE except for IE 5.01, service pack 4, and that it would be possible for attackers to work around the protection.In an advisory, Microsoft recommended people use DEP, which by default is enabled in IE 8 but must be turned on in prior versions.
The statement also advised users on Vista and later versions of Windows to run IE in protected mode.
The advisory didn't say when an update would be released that patches the vulnerability.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30780708</id>
	<title>Re:Chinese govt inspection of MSFT code?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263579720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I recall MSFT allowed the Chinese government to look at Windows source code a few years back.  I wonder if the vulnerable IE6/7/8 code was part of the code provided to the Chinese government, but IE5.4 (not vulnerable to the latest attack, apparently) didn't include the problem code?  This is something that can be checked.  It could be an indication of whether the Chinese used the source code inspection as a road map to identify vulnerabilities for attacks like these.</p></div><p>So the vulnerability was exploited when the "opened" their code... obfuscation works!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;P</p><p>(that was a joke, put those stones down... seriously)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall MSFT allowed the Chinese government to look at Windows source code a few years back .
I wonder if the vulnerable IE6/7/8 code was part of the code provided to the Chinese government , but IE5.4 ( not vulnerable to the latest attack , apparently ) did n't include the problem code ?
This is something that can be checked .
It could be an indication of whether the Chinese used the source code inspection as a road map to identify vulnerabilities for attacks like these.So the vulnerability was exploited when the " opened " their code... obfuscation works !
; P ( that was a joke , put those stones down... seriously )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recall MSFT allowed the Chinese government to look at Windows source code a few years back.
I wonder if the vulnerable IE6/7/8 code was part of the code provided to the Chinese government, but IE5.4 (not vulnerable to the latest attack, apparently) didn't include the problem code?
This is something that can be checked.
It could be an indication of whether the Chinese used the source code inspection as a road map to identify vulnerabilities for attacks like these.So the vulnerability was exploited when the "opened" their code... obfuscation works!
;P(that was a joke, put those stones down... seriously)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774956</id>
	<title>Re:Not PDFs?</title>
	<author>gumbo</author>
	<datestamp>1263486900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Acrobat vulnerabilities let you directly drop and install your malware on the system, you don't need to invoke a browser at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Acrobat vulnerabilities let you directly drop and install your malware on the system , you do n't need to invoke a browser at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Acrobat vulnerabilities let you directly drop and install your malware on the system, you don't need to invoke a browser at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773670</id>
	<title>Attacks targeted IE6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263477060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the McAfee writeup: "So far the attacks we've seen using this vector have been focused on Internet Explorer 6." The stupid but obvious question: why are people at these companies using IE6?</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the McAfee writeup : " So far the attacks we 've seen using this vector have been focused on Internet Explorer 6 .
" The stupid but obvious question : why are people at these companies using IE6 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the McAfee writeup: "So far the attacks we've seen using this vector have been focused on Internet Explorer 6.
" The stupid but obvious question: why are people at these companies using IE6?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30792908</id>
	<title>Re:China is a major IT threat !</title>
	<author>myspace-cn</author>
	<datestamp>1263634560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's damn scary just how far the Chinese have wormed into the US corporate and military systems<br>That would be scary if I didn't think you were just making that up."</p><p>Well perhaps you might be interested in who is doping chips. And what oversight of that process, and who the chips are sold to.  Even the pentagon and the USAF have problems with maliciously doped chips. If you think I am making this up, I suggest you go <a href="http://rationallyparanoid.com/news/200805/20080502-chip-killswitch.html" title="rationallyparanoid.com" rel="nofollow">read/a&gt; for yourself.</a> [rationallyparanoid.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's damn scary just how far the Chinese have wormed into the US corporate and military systemsThat would be scary if I did n't think you were just making that up .
" Well perhaps you might be interested in who is doping chips .
And what oversight of that process , and who the chips are sold to .
Even the pentagon and the USAF have problems with maliciously doped chips .
If you think I am making this up , I suggest you go read/a &gt; for yourself .
[ rationallyparanoid.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's damn scary just how far the Chinese have wormed into the US corporate and military systemsThat would be scary if I didn't think you were just making that up.
"Well perhaps you might be interested in who is doping chips.
And what oversight of that process, and who the chips are sold to.
Even the pentagon and the USAF have problems with maliciously doped chips.
If you think I am making this up, I suggest you go read/a&gt; for yourself.
[rationallyparanoid.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30780488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773864</id>
	<title>Re:It's not stupidity</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1263478260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>try getting into bed with IBM, the darling of the OSS crowd. THEN you'll know what vendor lock in is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>try getting into bed with IBM , the darling of the OSS crowd .
THEN you 'll know what vendor lock in is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>try getting into bed with IBM, the darling of the OSS crowd.
THEN you'll know what vendor lock in is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30780788</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why are people at google using IE?</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1263580020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because most google employees are also slashdot readers. They knew that they would get pwnd, but could then point the finger at Microsoft. They also knew the security analysis would show this and an article would end up on slashdot, thus earning even more Microsoft ire. Slowly, but surely, Google has been manipulating the roving hordes of OSS fanatics without them even knowing it. They're in our brains man! Their next move is going to be to get an article posted with a link to some of Microsoft's servers so that the slashdotters can bring Microsoft to its knees. This is corporate warfare in full swing man! Strap on your helmets and sharpen your perl skills. Before we know it Microsoft is going to retaliate with countless numbers of Balmer-bots 2.0 which shriek 'Developers!' at the top of their sound range and use chairs as ammunition. Apple will step into the fray when people least expect it with the iThink mind control device and try to use Google's followers against them. Luckily for all of us (maybe?) Google knows that the best exploit vector is social engineering and has been doing it to us for years! We are just pawns in an unholy game of compu-corporate chess. The only real question you should be asking is, would you rather be a pawn, or a knight?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because most google employees are also slashdot readers .
They knew that they would get pwnd , but could then point the finger at Microsoft .
They also knew the security analysis would show this and an article would end up on slashdot , thus earning even more Microsoft ire .
Slowly , but surely , Google has been manipulating the roving hordes of OSS fanatics without them even knowing it .
They 're in our brains man !
Their next move is going to be to get an article posted with a link to some of Microsoft 's servers so that the slashdotters can bring Microsoft to its knees .
This is corporate warfare in full swing man !
Strap on your helmets and sharpen your perl skills .
Before we know it Microsoft is going to retaliate with countless numbers of Balmer-bots 2.0 which shriek 'Developers !
' at the top of their sound range and use chairs as ammunition .
Apple will step into the fray when people least expect it with the iThink mind control device and try to use Google 's followers against them .
Luckily for all of us ( maybe ?
) Google knows that the best exploit vector is social engineering and has been doing it to us for years !
We are just pawns in an unholy game of compu-corporate chess .
The only real question you should be asking is , would you rather be a pawn , or a knight ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because most google employees are also slashdot readers.
They knew that they would get pwnd, but could then point the finger at Microsoft.
They also knew the security analysis would show this and an article would end up on slashdot, thus earning even more Microsoft ire.
Slowly, but surely, Google has been manipulating the roving hordes of OSS fanatics without them even knowing it.
They're in our brains man!
Their next move is going to be to get an article posted with a link to some of Microsoft's servers so that the slashdotters can bring Microsoft to its knees.
This is corporate warfare in full swing man!
Strap on your helmets and sharpen your perl skills.
Before we know it Microsoft is going to retaliate with countless numbers of Balmer-bots 2.0 which shriek 'Developers!
' at the top of their sound range and use chairs as ammunition.
Apple will step into the fray when people least expect it with the iThink mind control device and try to use Google's followers against them.
Luckily for all of us (maybe?
) Google knows that the best exploit vector is social engineering and has been doing it to us for years!
We are just pawns in an unholy game of compu-corporate chess.
The only real question you should be asking is, would you rather be a pawn, or a knight?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775826</id>
	<title>not actually the problem</title>
	<author>ILuvRamen</author>
	<datestamp>1263496800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What the also used in conjunction with it was the old "hey, click on this" security hole.  NPR reported that they sent out "convincing" e-mails and got the morons to click on it.  Who cares if it autoinstalled with a 0 day flaw by visiting the page.  That wouldn't have happened if the stupid people hadn't fallen for the same old e-mail tricks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the also used in conjunction with it was the old " hey , click on this " security hole .
NPR reported that they sent out " convincing " e-mails and got the morons to click on it .
Who cares if it autoinstalled with a 0 day flaw by visiting the page .
That would n't have happened if the stupid people had n't fallen for the same old e-mail tricks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the also used in conjunction with it was the old "hey, click on this" security hole.
NPR reported that they sent out "convincing" e-mails and got the morons to click on it.
Who cares if it autoinstalled with a 0 day flaw by visiting the page.
That wouldn't have happened if the stupid people hadn't fallen for the same old e-mail tricks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774436</id>
	<title>Security is like sex...</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1263482760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Mitigating Factors:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Protected Mode in Internet Explorer on Windows Vista and later Windows operating systems limits the impact of the vulnerability.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; In a Web-based attack scenario, an attacker could host a Web site that contains a Web page that is used to exploit this vulnerability. In addition, compromised Web sites and Web sites that accept or host user-provided content or advertisements could contain specially crafted content that could exploit this vulnerability. In all cases, however, an attacker would have no way to force users to visit these Web sites. Instead, an attacker would have to convince users to visit the Web site, typically by getting them to click a link in an e-mail message or Instant Messenger message that takes users to the attacker's Web site.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the local user. Users whose accounts are configured to have fewer user rights on the system could be less affected than users who operate with administrative user rights.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; By default, Internet Explorer on Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008 runs in a restricted mode that is known as Enhanced Security Configuration. This mode sets the security level for the Internet zone to High. This is a mitigating factor for Web sites that you have not added to the Internet Explorer Trusted sites zone.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; By default, all supported versions of Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Outlook Express, and Windows Mail open HTML e-mail messages in the Restricted sites zone. The Restricted sites zone helps mitigate attacks that could try to exploit this vulnerability by preventing Active Scripting and ActiveX controls from being used when reading HTML e-mail messages. However, if a user clicks a link in an e-mail message, the user could still be vulnerable to exploitation of this vulnerability through the Web-based attack scenario.</p></div></blockquote><p>Internal sandboxes don't protect you from having the compromised instance of IE being used to log passwords and steal other local information, nor does it prevent the compromised instance of IE from being a botnet node during the current session. Also, since IE still has to save files, load and execute programs, and so on, the strongest sandbox they can create is a leaky condom.</p><p>And security is like sex, once you're penetrated you're f***ed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mitigating Factors :         Protected Mode in Internet Explorer on Windows Vista and later Windows operating systems limits the impact of the vulnerability .
        In a Web-based attack scenario , an attacker could host a Web site that contains a Web page that is used to exploit this vulnerability .
In addition , compromised Web sites and Web sites that accept or host user-provided content or advertisements could contain specially crafted content that could exploit this vulnerability .
In all cases , however , an attacker would have no way to force users to visit these Web sites .
Instead , an attacker would have to convince users to visit the Web site , typically by getting them to click a link in an e-mail message or Instant Messenger message that takes users to the attacker 's Web site .
        An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the local user .
Users whose accounts are configured to have fewer user rights on the system could be less affected than users who operate with administrative user rights .
        By default , Internet Explorer on Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008 runs in a restricted mode that is known as Enhanced Security Configuration .
This mode sets the security level for the Internet zone to High .
This is a mitigating factor for Web sites that you have not added to the Internet Explorer Trusted sites zone .
        By default , all supported versions of Microsoft Outlook , Microsoft Outlook Express , and Windows Mail open HTML e-mail messages in the Restricted sites zone .
The Restricted sites zone helps mitigate attacks that could try to exploit this vulnerability by preventing Active Scripting and ActiveX controls from being used when reading HTML e-mail messages .
However , if a user clicks a link in an e-mail message , the user could still be vulnerable to exploitation of this vulnerability through the Web-based attack scenario.Internal sandboxes do n't protect you from having the compromised instance of IE being used to log passwords and steal other local information , nor does it prevent the compromised instance of IE from being a botnet node during the current session .
Also , since IE still has to save files , load and execute programs , and so on , the strongest sandbox they can create is a leaky condom.And security is like sex , once you 're penetrated you 're f * * * ed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mitigating Factors:
        Protected Mode in Internet Explorer on Windows Vista and later Windows operating systems limits the impact of the vulnerability.
        In a Web-based attack scenario, an attacker could host a Web site that contains a Web page that is used to exploit this vulnerability.
In addition, compromised Web sites and Web sites that accept or host user-provided content or advertisements could contain specially crafted content that could exploit this vulnerability.
In all cases, however, an attacker would have no way to force users to visit these Web sites.
Instead, an attacker would have to convince users to visit the Web site, typically by getting them to click a link in an e-mail message or Instant Messenger message that takes users to the attacker's Web site.
        An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the local user.
Users whose accounts are configured to have fewer user rights on the system could be less affected than users who operate with administrative user rights.
        By default, Internet Explorer on Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008 runs in a restricted mode that is known as Enhanced Security Configuration.
This mode sets the security level for the Internet zone to High.
This is a mitigating factor for Web sites that you have not added to the Internet Explorer Trusted sites zone.
        By default, all supported versions of Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Outlook Express, and Windows Mail open HTML e-mail messages in the Restricted sites zone.
The Restricted sites zone helps mitigate attacks that could try to exploit this vulnerability by preventing Active Scripting and ActiveX controls from being used when reading HTML e-mail messages.
However, if a user clicks a link in an e-mail message, the user could still be vulnerable to exploitation of this vulnerability through the Web-based attack scenario.Internal sandboxes don't protect you from having the compromised instance of IE being used to log passwords and steal other local information, nor does it prevent the compromised instance of IE from being a botnet node during the current session.
Also, since IE still has to save files, load and execute programs, and so on, the strongest sandbox they can create is a leaky condom.And security is like sex, once you're penetrated you're f***ed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30791262</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, but it doesn't count, right?</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1263665460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>(i.e., a vulnerability discovered 3 years after ship date, but patched a month after discovery means your system was vulnerable for <b>39 months, instead of only one as the MS method calculated vulnerability.</b> </i></p><p>Wouldn't that be 37 months?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( i.e. , a vulnerability discovered 3 years after ship date , but patched a month after discovery means your system was vulnerable for 39 months , instead of only one as the MS method calculated vulnerability .
Would n't that be 37 months ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(i.e., a vulnerability discovered 3 years after ship date, but patched a month after discovery means your system was vulnerable for 39 months, instead of only one as the MS method calculated vulnerability.
Wouldn't that be 37 months?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774268</id>
	<title>Re:More than just IE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263481500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> you can't just say that this is MS's fault</p></div><p>Of course we can, this is Slashdot!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you ca n't just say that this is MS 's faultOf course we can , this is Slashdot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> you can't just say that this is MS's faultOf course we can, this is Slashdot!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773994</id>
	<title>Re:Not PDFs?</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1263479340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever click on a link in Acrobat Reader?  Notice that it starts up IE and not whatever browser you have installed?</p><p>That's what happened.. of course the clicking on the link part was likely done with another flaw in Acrobat.</p><p>Leveraging flaws like this to get arbitrary code execution is about the only indication that these attackers were sophisticated.. otherwise it would just have been a dumb old "don't open the attachment idiot" attack.  Although it was that, so meh, they're not that sophisticated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever click on a link in Acrobat Reader ?
Notice that it starts up IE and not whatever browser you have installed ? That 's what happened.. of course the clicking on the link part was likely done with another flaw in Acrobat.Leveraging flaws like this to get arbitrary code execution is about the only indication that these attackers were sophisticated.. otherwise it would just have been a dumb old " do n't open the attachment idiot " attack .
Although it was that , so meh , they 're not that sophisticated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever click on a link in Acrobat Reader?
Notice that it starts up IE and not whatever browser you have installed?That's what happened.. of course the clicking on the link part was likely done with another flaw in Acrobat.Leveraging flaws like this to get arbitrary code execution is about the only indication that these attackers were sophisticated.. otherwise it would just have been a dumb old "don't open the attachment idiot" attack.
Although it was that, so meh, they're not that sophisticated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774080</id>
	<title>Re:Chinese govt inspection of MSFT code?</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1263480060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is worth noting that unless you specifically exclude IE8 from DEP (or disable DEP globally) then it is not vulnerable to this attack. You can also enable DEP (either via opt-in or by switching the default behavior system-wide to opt-out) for the previous IE versions.</p><p>Nonetheless, it's possible that the vulnerability was discovered in the manner you suggest. I'm not sure they saw the IE8 code, but if the same vulnerability is used on all versions it's probably in code that hasn't changed in a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is worth noting that unless you specifically exclude IE8 from DEP ( or disable DEP globally ) then it is not vulnerable to this attack .
You can also enable DEP ( either via opt-in or by switching the default behavior system-wide to opt-out ) for the previous IE versions.Nonetheless , it 's possible that the vulnerability was discovered in the manner you suggest .
I 'm not sure they saw the IE8 code , but if the same vulnerability is used on all versions it 's probably in code that has n't changed in a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is worth noting that unless you specifically exclude IE8 from DEP (or disable DEP globally) then it is not vulnerable to this attack.
You can also enable DEP (either via opt-in or by switching the default behavior system-wide to opt-out) for the previous IE versions.Nonetheless, it's possible that the vulnerability was discovered in the manner you suggest.
I'm not sure they saw the IE8 code, but if the same vulnerability is used on all versions it's probably in code that hasn't changed in a while.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774770</id>
	<title>Re:No sign of vanishing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263485340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, same here. And anonymous of course..</p><p>The reason we haven't changed is that many of our internal applications for timesheets, problem tracking, and just general reports work only with IE. I don't think the apps themselves are at fault, just the lazy-ass developers that wrote code that only works with ActiveX controls. These include Remedy, Mercury Sitescope, Clarity (time tracking), Notes, PeopleSoft and numerous reporting tools.  It's only now becoming a big deal because the executives have started getting Macs and iPhones, Blackberrys and other non-IE devices and find that they can't check their email.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , same here .
And anonymous of course..The reason we have n't changed is that many of our internal applications for timesheets , problem tracking , and just general reports work only with IE .
I do n't think the apps themselves are at fault , just the lazy-ass developers that wrote code that only works with ActiveX controls .
These include Remedy , Mercury Sitescope , Clarity ( time tracking ) , Notes , PeopleSoft and numerous reporting tools .
It 's only now becoming a big deal because the executives have started getting Macs and iPhones , Blackberrys and other non-IE devices and find that they ca n't check their email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, same here.
And anonymous of course..The reason we haven't changed is that many of our internal applications for timesheets, problem tracking, and just general reports work only with IE.
I don't think the apps themselves are at fault, just the lazy-ass developers that wrote code that only works with ActiveX controls.
These include Remedy, Mercury Sitescope, Clarity (time tracking), Notes, PeopleSoft and numerous reporting tools.
It's only now becoming a big deal because the executives have started getting Macs and iPhones, Blackberrys and other non-IE devices and find that they can't check their email.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776774</id>
	<title>China's NO threat IF this is implemented</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263552900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"we're in deep shit if China decides to turn malicious."</b> - by fluffy99 (870997) on Thursday January 14, @09:10PM (#30774326)</p></div><p>Not really. Not if companies &amp; their LAN/WAN security setups, ESPECIALLY @ THE WORKSTATION &amp; SERVER LEVEL, this way -&gt;</p><p>----</p><p><b>HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, + VISTA </b>(&amp; beyond)<b>, and, make it "fun-to-do" via CIS Tool Guidance</b> (&amp; beyond):</p><p><a href="http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=b35dfec0da75d7dab52dab8b321d373e&amp;showtopic=2662" title="tcmagazine.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=b35dfec0da75d7dab52dab8b321d373e&amp;showtopic=2662</a> [tcmagazine.com]</p><p>----</p><p>It works, if it is followed TO-THE-LETTER, &amp; implemented properly!</p><p>A testimonial of its results also? Here is one:</p><p>----</p><p><a href="http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28430" title="xtremepccentral.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28430</a> [xtremepccentral.com]</p><p><b>PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:</b></p><p>"...recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual. Now I don't recommend this for the average joe, but it if can work for a kids PC it can work for anything!"</p><p>and</p><p><a href="http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=10f9ba9ad5ff990aaae1e7ec91f593a2&amp;t=28430&amp;page=3" title="xtremepccentral.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=10f9ba9ad5ff990aaae1e7ec91f593a2&amp;t=28430&amp;page=3</a> [xtremepccentral.com]</p><p>"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updater, needed system local)"</p><p>Thronka - forums member @ xtremepccentral.com</p><p>----</p><p>Especially if users are EDUCATED vs. these kinds of threats + others (but, per what happened here? It's useful, specifically these kind, where 'social engineering' &amp; PUNY TRICKS like a malscripted<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pdf file is used).</p><p><b>I covered ADOBE PDF EXPLOITS THERE, &amp; HOW TO STOP/STALL THEM, &amp; YEARS AGO NO LESS</b> (2006) <b>+ FAR MORE &amp; how to work around or protect one's self vs. them... &amp; guess what? IT ACTUALLY WORKS!</b></p><p>By the by:</p><p>I actually wrote the FIRST "Security &amp; Speedup guide" for Windows (1997-2001 -&gt; <a href="http://www.neowin.net/news/main/01/11/29/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text" title="neowin.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.neowin.net/news/main/01/11/29/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text</a> [neowin.net] &amp; it did very well for its day, back in 1997 for NTCompatible.com (&amp; that's Neowin's "take" on it, an excellent rating no less in that URL I just posted)...</p><p>AND, that guide is now carried forward to today &amp; does well there in the URL above from TECH CONNECT MAGAZINE, &amp; elsewhere online as well... because it actually WORKS &amp; well!</p><p>(Today, vs. my older guide's models? It is mostly on security now though, more than speed, because that IS the "bigger problem" out here nowadays))</p><p>So far, it's done to the tune of over 250,000++ views online, being made an "Essential Guide" or "Sticky/Pinned" thread, or "most viewed" or "5/5 star rated" etc. et al on 15/20 forums it is on, because it actually works.</p><p>(E.G.-&gt; Search "HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP" online, &amp; you'll see it "owns" the top spot &amp; top 50-100 in fact)</p><p>----</p><div class="quote"><p><b>"They have the power to level the US financial systems, military supply lines, utilities, etc which would quickly ruin the US."</b> - by fluffy99 (870997) on Thursday January 14, @09:10PM (#30774326)</p></div><p>Well, again - NOT if security measures are taken by IT staff AND END-USERS!</p><p>At least not as much, &amp; especially vs. what I consider basically a "script kiddie" attack such as was noted as being used here in a malscripted<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pdf attack, because that is easily stopped &amp; my guide above illustrated how to do that, YEARS AGO... because I saw that "madness-N-lunacy" coming even back then (anytime you add scripting ability to documents? Imo, you're ASKING FOR THIS KIND OF TROUBLE, such as was seen in Word docs &amp;/or Excel spreadsheets (or even Access DB's) via their VBA macros!)...</p><p>I am also personally surprised that MS &amp; other OS vendors (Linux has attempted to "shore this up" though, via including SeLinux default policies, not the tightest possible of course, but better than none afaik) have not shipped a "security hardened" build to end-users really... making the USER 'take responsibility' for "opening up any doors" on THEIR end, by shipping an OS essentially CLOSED vs. ATTACK @ first, out-of-the-box/oem stock... &amp; then? Then, letting the user "open doors" they need open, &amp; THEN ONLY!</p><p>That'd "cut down" on a hell of a lot, AND put the responsibility onto the user doing it to himself also... i.e., build in a wizardy type app that says "what do you need or want to do, &amp; here is how you open the doors for that" type stuff, to make it simpler on the end-user (MS sort of has something like this in Windows Server 2003, in the SCW (server config wizard) &amp; their Baseline Security tool also, but, you have to haul in the latter &amp; use it, yourself... there are also other tools like CIS Tool that I noted above that help immensely in this capacity also.</p><p>Then, the rest is "shoring up" the security vulnerabilities bugs in tools/programs like browsers (especially these &amp; the damned javascript out there that gets maliciously used (this is going to be the HARD part, imo @ least, because code... ANY KIND OF CODE, can be used "both ways" for 'good' &amp; 'bad', because it is code &amp; thus, a "double-edged sword"... the DOM has to be improved on javascript, this is CERTAIN).</p><p>----</p><div class="quote"><p><b>"The reason they have not? It's not that they're scared of the US retaliating in kind - they clearly have the upper hand on that front. They need us to continue leeching our dollars and tech."</b> - by fluffy99 (870997) on Thursday January 14, @09:10PM (#30774326)</p></div><p>That sword cuts both ways though, don't you think? The problem is, &amp; I don't think either side is this stupid, this: NOBODY EVER REALLY WINS A FIGHT... a close fight especially, with respectable opponents on BOTH sides of it. Everyone takes a beating... &amp; that? That is NOT logical to enter into, by any means... &amp; only FOOLS do that.</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; Securing systems, &amp; educating users? Job #1, imo @ least (&amp; especially vs. PUNY SCRIPT KIDDIE TYPE SOCIALLY ENGINEERED EXPLOITS like this one via<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pdf files that have been scripted maliciously via javascript misuse)...</p><p>Then, attack the problems in the webbrowsers + email programs, &amp; yes ones like Adobe products too, which FLASH &amp;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.PDF formatted files have been HUGELY attacked &amp; used in attacks online for the past 4++ yrs. now (IE &amp; FF mostly need work in the way of webbrowsers, &amp; Opera tends to be more secure overally AND OVERALL FASTER USUALLY) + the javascript DOM being fixed/more secured? Well, do that? Well, you probably can lick a good 80\% of what goes on out there... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" we 're in deep shit if China decides to turn malicious .
" - by fluffy99 ( 870997 ) on Thursday January 14 , @ 09 : 10PM ( # 30774326 ) Not really .
Not if companies &amp; their LAN/WAN security setups , ESPECIALLY @ THE WORKSTATION &amp; SERVER LEVEL , this way - &gt; ----HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 , + VISTA ( &amp; beyond ) , and , make it " fun-to-do " via CIS Tool Guidance ( &amp; beyond ) : http : //www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php ? s = b35dfec0da75d7dab52dab8b321d373e&amp;showtopic = 2662 [ tcmagazine.com ] ----It works , if it is followed TO-THE-LETTER , &amp; implemented properly ! A testimonial of its results also ?
Here is one : ----http : //www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php ? t = 28430 [ xtremepccentral.com ] PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT : " ...recently , months ago when you finally got this guide done , had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids .
My client , who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this , has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS !
I have n't even had a follow up call which is unusual .
Now I do n't recommend this for the average joe , but it if can work for a kids PC it can work for anything !
" andhttp : //www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php ? s = 10f9ba9ad5ff990aaae1e7ec91f593a2&amp;t = 28430&amp;page = 3 [ xtremepccentral.com ] " Its 2009 - still trouble free !
I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration , and he said I was doing overkill .
I told him yes , but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get .
He said good point .
So from 2008 till 2009 .
No speed decreases , its been to a lan party , moved around in a move , and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008 .
Great stuff !
My client STILL Has n't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid .
I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works .
Speaking of which , I need to call her to see if I can get some leads .
APK - I will say it again , the guide is FANTASTIC !
Its made my PC experience much easier .
Sandboxing was great .
Getting my host file updated , setting services to system service , rather than system local .
( except AVG updater , needed system local ) " Thronka - forums member @ xtremepccentral.com----Especially if users are EDUCATED vs. these kinds of threats + others ( but , per what happened here ?
It 's useful , specifically these kind , where 'social engineering ' &amp; PUNY TRICKS like a malscripted .pdf file is used ) .I covered ADOBE PDF EXPLOITS THERE , &amp; HOW TO STOP/STALL THEM , &amp; YEARS AGO NO LESS ( 2006 ) + FAR MORE &amp; how to work around or protect one 's self vs. them... &amp; guess what ?
IT ACTUALLY WORKS ! By the by : I actually wrote the FIRST " Security &amp; Speedup guide " for Windows ( 1997-2001 - &gt; http : //www.neowin.net/news/main/01/11/29/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text [ neowin.net ] &amp; it did very well for its day , back in 1997 for NTCompatible.com ( &amp; that 's Neowin 's " take " on it , an excellent rating no less in that URL I just posted ) ...AND , that guide is now carried forward to today &amp; does well there in the URL above from TECH CONNECT MAGAZINE , &amp; elsewhere online as well... because it actually WORKS &amp; well !
( Today , vs. my older guide 's models ?
It is mostly on security now though , more than speed , because that IS the " bigger problem " out here nowadays ) ) So far , it 's done to the tune of over 250,000 + + views online , being made an " Essential Guide " or " Sticky/Pinned " thread , or " most viewed " or " 5/5 star rated " etc .
et al on 15/20 forums it is on , because it actually works .
( E.G.- &gt; Search " HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP " online , &amp; you 'll see it " owns " the top spot &amp; top 50-100 in fact ) ---- " They have the power to level the US financial systems , military supply lines , utilities , etc which would quickly ruin the US .
" - by fluffy99 ( 870997 ) on Thursday January 14 , @ 09 : 10PM ( # 30774326 ) Well , again - NOT if security measures are taken by IT staff AND END-USERS ! At least not as much , &amp; especially vs. what I consider basically a " script kiddie " attack such as was noted as being used here in a malscripted .pdf attack , because that is easily stopped &amp; my guide above illustrated how to do that , YEARS AGO... because I saw that " madness-N-lunacy " coming even back then ( anytime you add scripting ability to documents ?
Imo , you 're ASKING FOR THIS KIND OF TROUBLE , such as was seen in Word docs &amp;/or Excel spreadsheets ( or even Access DB 's ) via their VBA macros !
) ...I am also personally surprised that MS &amp; other OS vendors ( Linux has attempted to " shore this up " though , via including SeLinux default policies , not the tightest possible of course , but better than none afaik ) have not shipped a " security hardened " build to end-users really... making the USER 'take responsibility ' for " opening up any doors " on THEIR end , by shipping an OS essentially CLOSED vs. ATTACK @ first , out-of-the-box/oem stock... &amp; then ?
Then , letting the user " open doors " they need open , &amp; THEN ONLY ! That 'd " cut down " on a hell of a lot , AND put the responsibility onto the user doing it to himself also.. .
i.e. , build in a wizardy type app that says " what do you need or want to do , &amp; here is how you open the doors for that " type stuff , to make it simpler on the end-user ( MS sort of has something like this in Windows Server 2003 , in the SCW ( server config wizard ) &amp; their Baseline Security tool also , but , you have to haul in the latter &amp; use it , yourself... there are also other tools like CIS Tool that I noted above that help immensely in this capacity also.Then , the rest is " shoring up " the security vulnerabilities bugs in tools/programs like browsers ( especially these &amp; the damned javascript out there that gets maliciously used ( this is going to be the HARD part , imo @ least , because code... ANY KIND OF CODE , can be used " both ways " for 'good ' &amp; 'bad ' , because it is code &amp; thus , a " double-edged sword " ... the DOM has to be improved on javascript , this is CERTAIN ) .---- " The reason they have not ?
It 's not that they 're scared of the US retaliating in kind - they clearly have the upper hand on that front .
They need us to continue leeching our dollars and tech .
" - by fluffy99 ( 870997 ) on Thursday January 14 , @ 09 : 10PM ( # 30774326 ) That sword cuts both ways though , do n't you think ?
The problem is , &amp; I do n't think either side is this stupid , this : NOBODY EVER REALLY WINS A FIGHT... a close fight especially , with respectable opponents on BOTH sides of it .
Everyone takes a beating... &amp; that ?
That is NOT logical to enter into , by any means... &amp; only FOOLS do that.APKP.S. = &gt; Securing systems , &amp; educating users ?
Job # 1 , imo @ least ( &amp; especially vs. PUNY SCRIPT KIDDIE TYPE SOCIALLY ENGINEERED EXPLOITS like this one via .pdf files that have been scripted maliciously via javascript misuse ) ...Then , attack the problems in the webbrowsers + email programs , &amp; yes ones like Adobe products too , which FLASH &amp; .PDF formatted files have been HUGELY attacked &amp; used in attacks online for the past 4 + + yrs .
now ( IE &amp; FF mostly need work in the way of webbrowsers , &amp; Opera tends to be more secure overally AND OVERALL FASTER USUALLY ) + the javascript DOM being fixed/more secured ?
Well , do that ?
Well , you probably can lick a good 80 \ % of what goes on out there... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"we're in deep shit if China decides to turn malicious.
" - by fluffy99 (870997) on Thursday January 14, @09:10PM (#30774326)Not really.
Not if companies &amp; their LAN/WAN security setups, ESPECIALLY @ THE WORKSTATION &amp; SERVER LEVEL, this way -&gt;----HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, + VISTA (&amp; beyond), and, make it "fun-to-do" via CIS Tool Guidance (&amp; beyond):http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=b35dfec0da75d7dab52dab8b321d373e&amp;showtopic=2662 [tcmagazine.com]----It works, if it is followed TO-THE-LETTER, &amp; implemented properly!A testimonial of its results also?
Here is one:----http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28430 [xtremepccentral.com]PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:"...recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids.
My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS!
I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual.
Now I don't recommend this for the average joe, but it if can work for a kids PC it can work for anything!
"andhttp://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=10f9ba9ad5ff990aaae1e7ec91f593a2&amp;t=28430&amp;page=3 [xtremepccentral.com]"Its 2009 - still trouble free!
I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill.
I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get.
He said good point.
So from 2008 till 2009.
No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008.
Great stuff!
My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid.
I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works.
Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads.
APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC!
Its made my PC experience much easier.
Sandboxing was great.
Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local.
(except AVG updater, needed system local)"Thronka - forums member @ xtremepccentral.com----Especially if users are EDUCATED vs. these kinds of threats + others (but, per what happened here?
It's useful, specifically these kind, where 'social engineering' &amp; PUNY TRICKS like a malscripted .pdf file is used).I covered ADOBE PDF EXPLOITS THERE, &amp; HOW TO STOP/STALL THEM, &amp; YEARS AGO NO LESS (2006) + FAR MORE &amp; how to work around or protect one's self vs. them... &amp; guess what?
IT ACTUALLY WORKS!By the by:I actually wrote the FIRST "Security &amp; Speedup guide" for Windows (1997-2001 -&gt; http://www.neowin.net/news/main/01/11/29/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text [neowin.net] &amp; it did very well for its day, back in 1997 for NTCompatible.com (&amp; that's Neowin's "take" on it, an excellent rating no less in that URL I just posted)...AND, that guide is now carried forward to today &amp; does well there in the URL above from TECH CONNECT MAGAZINE, &amp; elsewhere online as well... because it actually WORKS &amp; well!
(Today, vs. my older guide's models?
It is mostly on security now though, more than speed, because that IS the "bigger problem" out here nowadays))So far, it's done to the tune of over 250,000++ views online, being made an "Essential Guide" or "Sticky/Pinned" thread, or "most viewed" or "5/5 star rated" etc.
et al on 15/20 forums it is on, because it actually works.
(E.G.-&gt; Search "HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP" online, &amp; you'll see it "owns" the top spot &amp; top 50-100 in fact)----"They have the power to level the US financial systems, military supply lines, utilities, etc which would quickly ruin the US.
" - by fluffy99 (870997) on Thursday January 14, @09:10PM (#30774326)Well, again - NOT if security measures are taken by IT staff AND END-USERS!At least not as much, &amp; especially vs. what I consider basically a "script kiddie" attack such as was noted as being used here in a malscripted .pdf attack, because that is easily stopped &amp; my guide above illustrated how to do that, YEARS AGO... because I saw that "madness-N-lunacy" coming even back then (anytime you add scripting ability to documents?
Imo, you're ASKING FOR THIS KIND OF TROUBLE, such as was seen in Word docs &amp;/or Excel spreadsheets (or even Access DB's) via their VBA macros!
)...I am also personally surprised that MS &amp; other OS vendors (Linux has attempted to "shore this up" though, via including SeLinux default policies, not the tightest possible of course, but better than none afaik) have not shipped a "security hardened" build to end-users really... making the USER 'take responsibility' for "opening up any doors" on THEIR end, by shipping an OS essentially CLOSED vs. ATTACK @ first, out-of-the-box/oem stock... &amp; then?
Then, letting the user "open doors" they need open, &amp; THEN ONLY!That'd "cut down" on a hell of a lot, AND put the responsibility onto the user doing it to himself also...
i.e., build in a wizardy type app that says "what do you need or want to do, &amp; here is how you open the doors for that" type stuff, to make it simpler on the end-user (MS sort of has something like this in Windows Server 2003, in the SCW (server config wizard) &amp; their Baseline Security tool also, but, you have to haul in the latter &amp; use it, yourself... there are also other tools like CIS Tool that I noted above that help immensely in this capacity also.Then, the rest is "shoring up" the security vulnerabilities bugs in tools/programs like browsers (especially these &amp; the damned javascript out there that gets maliciously used (this is going to be the HARD part, imo @ least, because code... ANY KIND OF CODE, can be used "both ways" for 'good' &amp; 'bad', because it is code &amp; thus, a "double-edged sword"... the DOM has to be improved on javascript, this is CERTAIN).----"The reason they have not?
It's not that they're scared of the US retaliating in kind - they clearly have the upper hand on that front.
They need us to continue leeching our dollars and tech.
" - by fluffy99 (870997) on Thursday January 14, @09:10PM (#30774326)That sword cuts both ways though, don't you think?
The problem is, &amp; I don't think either side is this stupid, this: NOBODY EVER REALLY WINS A FIGHT... a close fight especially, with respectable opponents on BOTH sides of it.
Everyone takes a beating... &amp; that?
That is NOT logical to enter into, by any means... &amp; only FOOLS do that.APKP.S.=&gt; Securing systems, &amp; educating users?
Job #1, imo @ least (&amp; especially vs. PUNY SCRIPT KIDDIE TYPE SOCIALLY ENGINEERED EXPLOITS like this one via .pdf files that have been scripted maliciously via javascript misuse)...Then, attack the problems in the webbrowsers + email programs, &amp; yes ones like Adobe products too, which FLASH &amp; .PDF formatted files have been HUGELY attacked &amp; used in attacks online for the past 4++ yrs.
now (IE &amp; FF mostly need work in the way of webbrowsers, &amp; Opera tends to be more secure overally AND OVERALL FASTER USUALLY) + the javascript DOM being fixed/more secured?
Well, do that?
Well, you probably can lick a good 80\% of what goes on out there... apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775794</id>
	<title>Re:It's not stupidity</title>
	<author>westyvw</author>
	<datestamp>1263496440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh I was hoping you were saying that sharepoint is no longer supported and going away like IE 6. Well one can only hope.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh I was hoping you were saying that sharepoint is no longer supported and going away like IE 6 .
Well one can only hope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh I was hoping you were saying that sharepoint is no longer supported and going away like IE 6.
Well one can only hope.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774104</id>
	<title>Re:Attacks targeted IE6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263480180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because they have no choice. They spent millions of dollars on bespoke or proprietary intranet software that will work with nothing else. In fact, such software is STILL SOLD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they have no choice .
They spent millions of dollars on bespoke or proprietary intranet software that will work with nothing else .
In fact , such software is STILL SOLD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they have no choice.
They spent millions of dollars on bespoke or proprietary intranet software that will work with nothing else.
In fact, such software is STILL SOLD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776084</id>
	<title>get people to stop using IE</title>
	<author>chris\_mahan</author>
	<datestamp>1263587040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>make your xhtml1.1 page with a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xml extension.</p><p>See <a href="http://kissws.com/" title="kissws.com" rel="nofollow">http://kissws.com/</a> [kissws.com] in any browser beside IE. You'll get the page. With IE, you'll get something else. And there's nothing you can do to coerce IE to show it as a web page. So you'll have to switch to another browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>make your xhtml1.1 page with a .xml extension.See http : //kissws.com/ [ kissws.com ] in any browser beside IE .
You 'll get the page .
With IE , you 'll get something else .
And there 's nothing you can do to coerce IE to show it as a web page .
So you 'll have to switch to another browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>make your xhtml1.1 page with a .xml extension.See http://kissws.com/ [kissws.com] in any browser beside IE.
You'll get the page.
With IE, you'll get something else.
And there's nothing you can do to coerce IE to show it as a web page.
So you'll have to switch to another browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776834</id>
	<title>Re:You know what this means</title>
	<author>mstahl</author>
	<datestamp>1263553560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Methinks it would avoid any anti-trust issues as well.</p></div><p>How is that? Microsoft could (irony!) sue for anticompetitive practices. It's not like that stuff gets any less illegal when people other than Microsoft do it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Methinks it would avoid any anti-trust issues as well.How is that ?
Microsoft could ( irony !
) sue for anticompetitive practices .
It 's not like that stuff gets any less illegal when people other than Microsoft do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Methinks it would avoid any anti-trust issues as well.How is that?
Microsoft could (irony!
) sue for anticompetitive practices.
It's not like that stuff gets any less illegal when people other than Microsoft do it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775770</id>
	<title>Re:You know what this means</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263496140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's cut-and-dried antitrust.</p><p>You are, in fact, suggesting that Google should leverage marksetshare in web portals in order to undercut the browser market.  There's some argument that it's not a "real" monopoly because of switching costs.  I don't think switching costs are built into most major antitrust laws, but anyway if that were any defense, Google successfully doing this would entirely shatter it, because it would prove that they had that power and were abusing it in one fell swoop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's cut-and-dried antitrust.You are , in fact , suggesting that Google should leverage marksetshare in web portals in order to undercut the browser market .
There 's some argument that it 's not a " real " monopoly because of switching costs .
I do n't think switching costs are built into most major antitrust laws , but anyway if that were any defense , Google successfully doing this would entirely shatter it , because it would prove that they had that power and were abusing it in one fell swoop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's cut-and-dried antitrust.You are, in fact, suggesting that Google should leverage marksetshare in web portals in order to undercut the browser market.
There's some argument that it's not a "real" monopoly because of switching costs.
I don't think switching costs are built into most major antitrust laws, but anyway if that were any defense, Google successfully doing this would entirely shatter it, because it would prove that they had that power and were abusing it in one fell swoop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774024</id>
	<title>Hold on this makes no sense.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263479580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I though browser vulnerabilities were supposed to be damaging to the person using the browser, not the other way around. If a "flaw" in a browser allows one to hack a site, I consider that a feature, not a vulnerability. Sounds like the flaw is in the server, not the browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I though browser vulnerabilities were supposed to be damaging to the person using the browser , not the other way around .
If a " flaw " in a browser allows one to hack a site , I consider that a feature , not a vulnerability .
Sounds like the flaw is in the server , not the browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I though browser vulnerabilities were supposed to be damaging to the person using the browser, not the other way around.
If a "flaw" in a browser allows one to hack a site, I consider that a feature, not a vulnerability.
Sounds like the flaw is in the server, not the browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774366</id>
	<title>Why isn't Google using Chrome?</title>
	<author>gjyoung</author>
	<datestamp>1263482100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Inquiring minds want to know....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Inquiring minds want to know... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Inquiring minds want to know....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773834</id>
	<title>Re:You know what this means</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263478200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is pure genius.</p><p>There are Sooooo many people that don't know how to find anything on the web without using Google that if Google did stop supporting IE, many of those people would start using Firefox simply to use Google. And that would be a huge foot-in-the-groin for Microsoft, even if it doesn't DIRECTLY benefit Google.</p><p>Methinks it would avoid any anti-trust issues as well.</p><p>Considering the topic of this thread, it might actually help to prevent further Chinese highjinks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is pure genius.There are Sooooo many people that do n't know how to find anything on the web without using Google that if Google did stop supporting IE , many of those people would start using Firefox simply to use Google .
And that would be a huge foot-in-the-groin for Microsoft , even if it does n't DIRECTLY benefit Google.Methinks it would avoid any anti-trust issues as well.Considering the topic of this thread , it might actually help to prevent further Chinese highjinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is pure genius.There are Sooooo many people that don't know how to find anything on the web without using Google that if Google did stop supporting IE, many of those people would start using Firefox simply to use Google.
And that would be a huge foot-in-the-groin for Microsoft, even if it doesn't DIRECTLY benefit Google.Methinks it would avoid any anti-trust issues as well.Considering the topic of this thread, it might actually help to prevent further Chinese highjinks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773938</id>
	<title>No sign of vanishing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263478860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IE shows no sign of vanishing from the corporate landscape</p></div><p>I work at a big company that takes an enormous number of precautions to secure and protect the confidential information of millions of people. And we still use IE6 with no sign of changing any time soon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IE shows no sign of vanishing from the corporate landscapeI work at a big company that takes an enormous number of precautions to secure and protect the confidential information of millions of people .
And we still use IE6 with no sign of changing any time soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE shows no sign of vanishing from the corporate landscapeI work at a big company that takes an enormous number of precautions to secure and protect the confidential information of millions of people.
And we still use IE6 with no sign of changing any time soon.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30777822</id>
	<title>Go Out With a Bang</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263564720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems China is always pulling this kind of thing. And they get away with it because their government not only protects them - it backs them up with resources.</p><p>I say Google should pull out of there, but only after unleashing some attacks of its own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems China is always pulling this kind of thing .
And they get away with it because their government not only protects them - it backs them up with resources.I say Google should pull out of there , but only after unleashing some attacks of its own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems China is always pulling this kind of thing.
And they get away with it because their government not only protects them - it backs them up with resources.I say Google should pull out of there, but only after unleashing some attacks of its own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773872</id>
	<title>No real fix...</title>
	<author>Aoet\_325</author>
	<datestamp>1263478320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, microsoft doesn't seem to have anything you can do to fix this.<br><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/979352.mspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/979352.mspx</a> [microsoft.com]<br>It's seems all they advise will only reduce your odds of getting hit (by helping protect against the methods they've seen used to exploit it) and reducing the damage done after IE runs the malicious code on your system.</p><p>What they should be suggesting is that people not use IE on the internet (if possible) until this is fixed.</p><p>'0 day' exploits are everywhere. What matters to me is that once discovered they are quickly patched or at the very least, a work around that actually prevents exploitation is provided.</p><p>I'd be interested to know more about the social engineering aspect of this attack. Was this more of the usual attempts (something that really should have been caught by anyone who knows better than to open random attachments and click links from strangers) or was there something much more involved that allowed the attackers to gain sufficient trust that any one of us would have likely fallen for this. Did the attackers spend months building a strong level of trust with the people at these companies or did someone click an on E-card?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , microsoft does n't seem to have anything you can do to fix this.http : //www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/979352.mspx [ microsoft.com ] It 's seems all they advise will only reduce your odds of getting hit ( by helping protect against the methods they 've seen used to exploit it ) and reducing the damage done after IE runs the malicious code on your system.What they should be suggesting is that people not use IE on the internet ( if possible ) until this is fixed .
'0 day ' exploits are everywhere .
What matters to me is that once discovered they are quickly patched or at the very least , a work around that actually prevents exploitation is provided.I 'd be interested to know more about the social engineering aspect of this attack .
Was this more of the usual attempts ( something that really should have been caught by anyone who knows better than to open random attachments and click links from strangers ) or was there something much more involved that allowed the attackers to gain sufficient trust that any one of us would have likely fallen for this .
Did the attackers spend months building a strong level of trust with the people at these companies or did someone click an on E-card ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, microsoft doesn't seem to have anything you can do to fix this.http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/979352.mspx [microsoft.com]It's seems all they advise will only reduce your odds of getting hit (by helping protect against the methods they've seen used to exploit it) and reducing the damage done after IE runs the malicious code on your system.What they should be suggesting is that people not use IE on the internet (if possible) until this is fixed.
'0 day' exploits are everywhere.
What matters to me is that once discovered they are quickly patched or at the very least, a work around that actually prevents exploitation is provided.I'd be interested to know more about the social engineering aspect of this attack.
Was this more of the usual attempts (something that really should have been caught by anyone who knows better than to open random attachments and click links from strangers) or was there something much more involved that allowed the attackers to gain sufficient trust that any one of us would have likely fallen for this.
Did the attackers spend months building a strong level of trust with the people at these companies or did someone click an on E-card?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773692</id>
	<title>Chinese govt inspection of MSFT code?</title>
	<author>SillyValley</author>
	<datestamp>1263477300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I recall MSFT allowed the Chinese government to look at Windows source code a few years back.  I wonder if the vulnerable IE6/7/8 code was part of the code provided to the Chinese government, but IE5.4 (not vulnerable to the latest attack, apparently) didn't include the problem code?  This is something that can be checked.  It could be an indication of whether the Chinese used the source code inspection as a road map to identify vulnerabilities for attacks like these.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall MSFT allowed the Chinese government to look at Windows source code a few years back .
I wonder if the vulnerable IE6/7/8 code was part of the code provided to the Chinese government , but IE5.4 ( not vulnerable to the latest attack , apparently ) did n't include the problem code ?
This is something that can be checked .
It could be an indication of whether the Chinese used the source code inspection as a road map to identify vulnerabilities for attacks like these .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recall MSFT allowed the Chinese government to look at Windows source code a few years back.
I wonder if the vulnerable IE6/7/8 code was part of the code provided to the Chinese government, but IE5.4 (not vulnerable to the latest attack, apparently) didn't include the problem code?
This is something that can be checked.
It could be an indication of whether the Chinese used the source code inspection as a road map to identify vulnerabilities for attacks like these.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776576</id>
	<title>Re:Nice spin !</title>
	<author>msclrhd</author>
	<datestamp>1263550260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Numbers are largely irrelevant. Any code will have bugs, and a percentage of those will be security issues. Yes, careful design and reviews can and will reduce the number of bugs, but will not eliminate them. Especially for a complex system that has a large codebase with multiple components interacting with each other, and with external libraries and components.</p><p>FLOSS does not refute this.</p><p>What is more interesting is:<br>1/  Is the fact that a larger number of vulnerabilities are found in Firefox and Chrome because their source code is there for people and researchers to examine, instead of being known only to the company producing the closed source product because that company views any of these issues to be a low priority?<br>2/  How quickly do the security issues get fixed?<br>3/  How quickly since the fix is created, does it get pushed out as a release?<br>4/  How quickly do customers get the fix?<br>5/  How many customers are left running an unpatched system?<br>6/  What are the tools (valgrind, sparse, dehydra, cocinelle, coverity) like for tracking down these types of issue?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Numbers are largely irrelevant .
Any code will have bugs , and a percentage of those will be security issues .
Yes , careful design and reviews can and will reduce the number of bugs , but will not eliminate them .
Especially for a complex system that has a large codebase with multiple components interacting with each other , and with external libraries and components.FLOSS does not refute this.What is more interesting is : 1/ Is the fact that a larger number of vulnerabilities are found in Firefox and Chrome because their source code is there for people and researchers to examine , instead of being known only to the company producing the closed source product because that company views any of these issues to be a low priority ? 2/ How quickly do the security issues get fixed ? 3/ How quickly since the fix is created , does it get pushed out as a release ? 4/ How quickly do customers get the fix ? 5/ How many customers are left running an unpatched system ? 6/ What are the tools ( valgrind , sparse , dehydra , cocinelle , coverity ) like for tracking down these types of issue ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Numbers are largely irrelevant.
Any code will have bugs, and a percentage of those will be security issues.
Yes, careful design and reviews can and will reduce the number of bugs, but will not eliminate them.
Especially for a complex system that has a large codebase with multiple components interacting with each other, and with external libraries and components.FLOSS does not refute this.What is more interesting is:1/  Is the fact that a larger number of vulnerabilities are found in Firefox and Chrome because their source code is there for people and researchers to examine, instead of being known only to the company producing the closed source product because that company views any of these issues to be a low priority?2/  How quickly do the security issues get fixed?3/  How quickly since the fix is created, does it get pushed out as a release?4/  How quickly do customers get the fix?5/  How many customers are left running an unpatched system?6/  What are the tools (valgrind, sparse, dehydra, cocinelle, coverity) like for tracking down these types of issue?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774050</id>
	<title>Slashdot uses ink?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263479820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>E-ink, mayyybe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>E-ink , mayyybe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>E-ink, mayyybe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774154</id>
	<title>mo3 up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263480600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>fatal mistakes, The project as a 1sn't a lemonade save Linux Jfrom a community. The paranoid conspiracy the top. Or were, Are a few good</htmltext>
<tokenext>fatal mistakes , The project as a 1s n't a lemonade save Linux Jfrom a community .
The paranoid conspiracy the top .
Or were , Are a few good</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fatal mistakes, The project as a 1sn't a lemonade save Linux Jfrom a community.
The paranoid conspiracy the top.
Or were, Are a few good</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773800</id>
	<title>Re:It's not stupidity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263478020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to TFA, this vulnerability was in IE6. Lock-in or no, you'd think they could have at least upgraded one version level up, if not two.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to TFA , this vulnerability was in IE6 .
Lock-in or no , you 'd think they could have at least upgraded one version level up , if not two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to TFA, this vulnerability was in IE6.
Lock-in or no, you'd think they could have at least upgraded one version level up, if not two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774122</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why are people at google using IE?</title>
	<author>Cassius Corodes</author>
	<datestamp>1263480360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People at google are not using IE - People who use google products like gmail use IE. They are the ones that got really owned. Google itself did not get completely owned (if you trust Google's narrative).</htmltext>
<tokenext>People at google are not using IE - People who use google products like gmail use IE .
They are the ones that got really owned .
Google itself did not get completely owned ( if you trust Google 's narrative ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People at google are not using IE - People who use google products like gmail use IE.
They are the ones that got really owned.
Google itself did not get completely owned (if you trust Google's narrative).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774018</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why are people at google using IE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263479580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sharepoint, which is a POS in of it's self.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sharepoint , which is a POS in of it 's self .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sharepoint, which is a POS in of it's self.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30777254</id>
	<title>IE 6 Only</title>
	<author>LinuxAndLube</author>
	<datestamp>1263558720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Misleading title, should be IE <b>6</b>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Misleading title , should be IE 6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Misleading title, should be IE 6.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774180</id>
	<title>Nice spin !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263480720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox has had multiple remote code vulnerabilities. As has Safari. As has Opera. Yawn.. No single piece of software is going to prevent targeted attacks. Sorry OSS cheerleaders, its true.</p><p>What I want to know is.. How the fuck did they get Google employees to click on random links in an email?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox has had multiple remote code vulnerabilities .
As has Safari .
As has Opera .
Yawn.. No single piece of software is going to prevent targeted attacks .
Sorry OSS cheerleaders , its true.What I want to know is.. How the fuck did they get Google employees to click on random links in an email ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox has had multiple remote code vulnerabilities.
As has Safari.
As has Opera.
Yawn.. No single piece of software is going to prevent targeted attacks.
Sorry OSS cheerleaders, its true.What I want to know is.. How the fuck did they get Google employees to click on random links in an email?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775978</id>
	<title>Re:You know what this means</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263585600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Methinks it would avoid any anti-trust issues as well.</p></div><p>Let's see. Using a monopoly position in search to disrupt the web browser market which they also participate in. Methinks not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Methinks it would avoid any anti-trust issues as well.Let 's see .
Using a monopoly position in search to disrupt the web browser market which they also participate in .
Methinks not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Methinks it would avoid any anti-trust issues as well.Let's see.
Using a monopoly position in search to disrupt the web browser market which they also participate in.
Methinks not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774910</id>
	<title>Re:A major security flaw in IE?</title>
	<author>okmijnuhb</author>
	<datestamp>1263486600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why that's the most unheard of thing I've ever heard of!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why that 's the most unheard of thing I 've ever heard of !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why that's the most unheard of thing I've ever heard of!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774388</id>
	<title>Re:Using Macs could have prevented this!</title>
	<author>Deanalator</author>
	<datestamp>1263482340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you think google got compromised by an IE 0day?  I doubt that.  it was likely one of the many MANY other buggy pieces of code that everyone has installed all over their companies.  Remember every year people spend their firefox 0day and pwn to own lust like they spend their IE and Safari 0day, which means browser bugs are typically worh less than 2k, which is on the low end of the vulnerability market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think google got compromised by an IE 0day ?
I doubt that .
it was likely one of the many MANY other buggy pieces of code that everyone has installed all over their companies .
Remember every year people spend their firefox 0day and pwn to own lust like they spend their IE and Safari 0day , which means browser bugs are typically worh less than 2k , which is on the low end of the vulnerability market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think google got compromised by an IE 0day?
I doubt that.
it was likely one of the many MANY other buggy pieces of code that everyone has installed all over their companies.
Remember every year people spend their firefox 0day and pwn to own lust like they spend their IE and Safari 0day, which means browser bugs are typically worh less than 2k, which is on the low end of the vulnerability market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775080</id>
	<title>Re:You know what this means</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263487920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>clearly, Google is a loser. What Google did on the TW machine is clearly illegal and who knows what other illegal spying activities have been done by Google.</p><p>Do no evil? What a laughing stock. LOL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>clearly , Google is a loser .
What Google did on the TW machine is clearly illegal and who knows what other illegal spying activities have been done by Google.Do no evil ?
What a laughing stock .
LOL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>clearly, Google is a loser.
What Google did on the TW machine is clearly illegal and who knows what other illegal spying activities have been done by Google.Do no evil?
What a laughing stock.
LOL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773678</id>
	<title>No sign of vanishing?</title>
	<author>Bottoms</author>
	<datestamp>1263477060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quick! Someone call David Copperfield!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quick !
Someone call David Copperfield !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quick!
Someone call David Copperfield!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30779072</id>
	<title>Take a moment to consider the sources:</title>
	<author>Herschel Cohen</author>
	<datestamp>1263571800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both have deep economic interests, even taking the more benign view, to induce self deception.  Sorry, the assertions may all be true, however, I would be more comfortable believing the blame if it came from a more independent group.</p><p>Adobe, see it's not me and McAfee take that MS for stealing our business.  Perhaps those are not the primary motives this time, nonetheless I find it hard to believe they are not present.  MS screwing up and denying it also would be no shock, but I partially withhold judgment.  I suggest others consider doing the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both have deep economic interests , even taking the more benign view , to induce self deception .
Sorry , the assertions may all be true , however , I would be more comfortable believing the blame if it came from a more independent group.Adobe , see it 's not me and McAfee take that MS for stealing our business .
Perhaps those are not the primary motives this time , nonetheless I find it hard to believe they are not present .
MS screwing up and denying it also would be no shock , but I partially withhold judgment .
I suggest others consider doing the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both have deep economic interests, even taking the more benign view, to induce self deception.
Sorry, the assertions may all be true, however, I would be more comfortable believing the blame if it came from a more independent group.Adobe, see it's not me and McAfee take that MS for stealing our business.
Perhaps those are not the primary motives this time, nonetheless I find it hard to believe they are not present.
MS screwing up and denying it also would be no shock, but I partially withhold judgment.
I suggest others consider doing the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773510</id>
	<title>You know what this means</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1263476220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly instead of (or at least as well as) pulling out of China, Google should stop supporting MSIE.</p><p>And declare cyber-war on Microsoft.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly instead of ( or at least as well as ) pulling out of China , Google should stop supporting MSIE.And declare cyber-war on Microsoft .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly instead of (or at least as well as) pulling out of China, Google should stop supporting MSIE.And declare cyber-war on Microsoft.
:P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774670</id>
	<title>And still ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263484560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... web sites continue to not warn their IE users about the security vulnerabilities in the clients those users are running.  They could warn those users each time they visit with IE.  But they don't.  It's time the webmasters of the world start to do something about the problem and put a big full page notice in front of all IE based visitors warning them about the troubles with IE and urging them to switch to a safer browser (and give some links, too).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... web sites continue to not warn their IE users about the security vulnerabilities in the clients those users are running .
They could warn those users each time they visit with IE .
But they do n't .
It 's time the webmasters of the world start to do something about the problem and put a big full page notice in front of all IE based visitors warning them about the troubles with IE and urging them to switch to a safer browser ( and give some links , too ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... web sites continue to not warn their IE users about the security vulnerabilities in the clients those users are running.
They could warn those users each time they visit with IE.
But they don't.
It's time the webmasters of the world start to do something about the problem and put a big full page notice in front of all IE based visitors warning them about the troubles with IE and urging them to switch to a safer browser (and give some links, too).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774880</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why are people at google using IE?</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1263486240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you hire anybody outside Software Engineering they are going to expect to run the full Microsoft software stack. Try telling your $500 k/year CFO he will be running Open Office. Not going to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you hire anybody outside Software Engineering they are going to expect to run the full Microsoft software stack .
Try telling your $ 500 k/year CFO he will be running Open Office .
Not going to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you hire anybody outside Software Engineering they are going to expect to run the full Microsoft software stack.
Try telling your $500 k/year CFO he will be running Open Office.
Not going to happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775684</id>
	<title>Nothing to see here. Move along.</title>
	<author>xactuary</author>
	<datestamp>1263495000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Familiarity breeds contempt. Can't we all just move along?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Familiarity breeds contempt .
Ca n't we all just move along ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Familiarity breeds contempt.
Can't we all just move along?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774428</id>
	<title>Re:It's not stupidity</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1263482640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"It's genuinely difficult to not get locked into somebody's product stack, and Microsoft's is, on the whole, no worse than anybody else's."</p></div></blockquote><p>Right<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... in the same way that you are no worse than the typical moron that would make such a statement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's genuinely difficult to not get locked into somebody 's product stack , and Microsoft 's is , on the whole , no worse than anybody else 's .
" Right ... in the same way that you are no worse than the typical moron that would make such a statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's genuinely difficult to not get locked into somebody's product stack, and Microsoft's is, on the whole, no worse than anybody else's.
"Right ... in the same way that you are no worse than the typical moron that would make such a statement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774778</id>
	<title>Re:Using Macs could have prevented this!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263485400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah?  They are talking about crashing/breaking into the server running the booby-trapped PHP code (eg. some remote user feeds funky numbers to a PHP application which then crashes the server or whatever).</p><p>Theoretically <em>any</em> application on OSX that uses strtod or gdtoa with user supplied input could be compromised.  It's possible that some Javascript engines use those functions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah ?
They are talking about crashing/breaking into the server running the booby-trapped PHP code ( eg .
some remote user feeds funky numbers to a PHP application which then crashes the server or whatever ) .Theoretically any application on OSX that uses strtod or gdtoa with user supplied input could be compromised .
It 's possible that some Javascript engines use those functions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah?
They are talking about crashing/breaking into the server running the booby-trapped PHP code (eg.
some remote user feeds funky numbers to a PHP application which then crashes the server or whatever).Theoretically any application on OSX that uses strtod or gdtoa with user supplied input could be compromised.
It's possible that some Javascript engines use those functions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30778380</id>
	<title>of course!!</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1263568200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who would be at the end of the cause of an attack against Americans, Microsoft of course!<br>This should be their problem, send them the bill for the damages.....<br>they might start thinking twice about pushing their scrubby IE on every one!</p><p>Long live FF!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who would be at the end of the cause of an attack against Americans , Microsoft of course ! This should be their problem , send them the bill for the damages.....they might start thinking twice about pushing their scrubby IE on every one ! Long live FF !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who would be at the end of the cause of an attack against Americans, Microsoft of course!This should be their problem, send them the bill for the damages.....they might start thinking twice about pushing their scrubby IE on every one!Long live FF!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30779552</id>
	<title>Re:DEP setting in IE?</title>
	<author>HydrusZ</author>
	<datestamp>1263574440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To my knowledge, DEP is a setting in Windows, not in IE. Does Microsoft not know it's own product or is this some different setting?</p></div><p>In IE8:<br>
Internet Options -&gt; Advanced -&gt; Security: Enable memory protection to help mitigate online attacks<br>
As you quoted, this is detailed in a post linked to in the advisory.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To my knowledge , DEP is a setting in Windows , not in IE .
Does Microsoft not know it 's own product or is this some different setting ? In IE8 : Internet Options - &gt; Advanced - &gt; Security : Enable memory protection to help mitigate online attacks As you quoted , this is detailed in a post linked to in the advisory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To my knowledge, DEP is a setting in Windows, not in IE.
Does Microsoft not know it's own product or is this some different setting?In IE8:
Internet Options -&gt; Advanced -&gt; Security: Enable memory protection to help mitigate online attacks
As you quoted, this is detailed in a post linked to in the advisory.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30791498</id>
	<title>Re:No sign of vanishing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263667080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And triangle-shaped buildings are less secure than rectangular ones because... ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And triangle-shaped buildings are less secure than rectangular ones because... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And triangle-shaped buildings are less secure than rectangular ones because... ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30777580</id>
	<title>Re:No real fix...</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1263562200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What they should be suggesting is that people not use IE on the internet (if possible) until this is fixed.</p></div><p>
Mozilla should do the same. Recommend against using Firefox until all known bugs are fixed.. right?<br>
<br>
Does that fit your world view?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What they should be suggesting is that people not use IE on the internet ( if possible ) until this is fixed .
Mozilla should do the same .
Recommend against using Firefox until all known bugs are fixed.. right ? Does that fit your world view ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they should be suggesting is that people not use IE on the internet (if possible) until this is fixed.
Mozilla should do the same.
Recommend against using Firefox until all known bugs are fixed.. right?

Does that fit your world view?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773872</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30780708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30777580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30778064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30777300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30791262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30777838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30778234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30777656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30780488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30792908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30777566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30777160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30792348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30778430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30780788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30791498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30779314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30778826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30779552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30790454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_0013239_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_0013239.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30780488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30792908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_0013239.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30780708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_0013239.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30790752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_0013239.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30778826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30779314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_0013239.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30791498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_0013239.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774508
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774792
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775406
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775914
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30777656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_0013239.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_0013239.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_0013239.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30780788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30777300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30778234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_0013239.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30777566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774114
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30778064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30792348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30790454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30778430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_0013239.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30777254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_0013239.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30777580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_0013239.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30791262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775396
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_0013239.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_0013239.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30779552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_0013239.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774180
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776572
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773666
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30777160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774370
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774778
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_0013239.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_0013239.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30773670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30775062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30777838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30776218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_0013239.30774104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
