From c8600854@flinet.com Tue Aug 27 12:32:11 1996 Received: from shell.flinet.com (root@shell.flinet.com [205.216.85.4]) by suburbia.net (8.7.4/Proff-950810) with ESMTP id MAA20038 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 12:31:51 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (wpb90.flinet.com [206.102.216.90]) by shell.flinet.com (8.7.4/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA01552; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 22:33:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <32220DCB.66C1@flinet.com> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 13:49:15 -0700 From: "George Y. de Randich" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: twiggy@accel.net CC: best-of-security@suburbia.net Subject: Re: BoS: Re: Gaping Security Hole References: <19960826014008307.AAA296@server.accel.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Twiggy wrote: > > "SekrtyXprt@aol.com" wrote: > > >croyston@netcom.com (Chris Royston) writes: > >> > >>This was a "feature" of the early beta copies of Windows 95. It allowed > >>a way of killing the screensaver incase of a system lockup. This was > >>fixed in the original "final" version of Windows 95. I guess the > >>workaround is to get a non-beta copy of Windows 95. > > [snip to comment about time-wasting posts] > > >I'm running final straight out of the box from best buy. (unless they're > >selling beta software now?) Maybe you should try things before you waste > >people's times with these types of posts? In newer betas it may have been > >fixed but the one at all the retail stores hasn't. > > every 95 box i've tested this on does not demonstrate > this terrible "security hole" and to be honest the idea > of a "gaping WINDOWS 95 security hole" is pretty funny. > perhaps you should ask who is wasting who's time, the > individual reporting that this "bug" was not found, or > the one posting to BoS about the "gaping hole" that some > unidentified eeeeevil hackers will use to penetrate the > otherwise formidable security of high profile, sensitive > installations like walmart and best buy. > > twiggy