«

Jim Watt wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:43:55 -0400, Imhotep <>
> wrote:
>
>>Jim Watt wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:15:51 -0400, Imhotep <>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> You really are a sad little obsessive wanker.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Watt
>>> http://www.gibnet.com
>>
>>...and you a pathetic man who hides behind tough words and antagonist ways
>>to hide the fact of your utter uselessness...
>
> so you say.
>
>>Still waiting on you description of password hacking. Jim, face it, you're
>>all talk...
>
> I never said I was was going to post information on hacking and have
> no intention of doing so.

You are doing the "Texas two step" and dancing around the issue. You can, as
I did, describe how it works without showing people code. You just do not
know and, as such, will not admit it. I know your game Jim. We all know
your game. You are a foolish impostor.

> But my main income has come from computers for some years and I've
> done most thjings wheras all you can do is make up a silly name and
> post links to other peoples stories.

So, you know history as well as computers. My choice of a screen name is out
of respect of a man that was thousands of years a head of his time. Try
reading more Jim you can learn history as well as these computer things
that everyone is talking about....

As for articles, at least I try to help people here by submitting articles
about what is going on in the World of computers. All you do is act like a
foolish troll...

So shutup, read and you might just become foolish instead of a fool.

> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com

Imhotep

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:15:31 -0400, Imhotep <>
wrote:

>Jim Watt wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:43:55 -0400, Imhotep <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Jim Watt wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:15:51 -0400, Imhotep <>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> You really are a sad little obsessive wanker.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jim Watt
>>>> http://www.gibnet.com
>>>
>>>...and you a pathetic man who hides behind tough words and antagonist ways
>>>to hide the fact of your utter uselessness...
>>
>> so you say.
>>
>>>Still waiting on you description of password hacking. Jim, face it, you're
>>>all talk...
>>
>> I never said I was was going to post information on hacking and have
>> no intention of doing so.
>
>You are doing the "Texas two step" and dancing around the issue. You can, as
>I did, describe how it works without showing people code. You just do not
>know and, as such, will not admit it. I know your game Jim. We all know
>your game. You are a foolish impostor.

Only a Queen gets to use the Royal 'we'

>As for articles, at least I try to help people here by submitting articles
>about what is going on in the World of computers.

yes oh great one, what did we do without you ...

get a life.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

"Imhotep" <> wrote in message
news:77edneB_b91Y9LreRVn-...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
>
> > "Imhotep" <> wrote in message
> > news:EvGdnTH-...
> >> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> > Erm.. you did, I think, when you had a go at 'em for not releasing
> >> > something that (presumably) failed testing.
> >>
> >> I think you assumed some things. You know what they say about
> > assuming...In
> >> stead try read the post literally. It was meant to warm people about a
> >> security hole that MS people are STILL vulnerable for.
> >
> > Nope. There was some self-satisfied FUD in there. Please go back and
> > reread your own posts...
>
> I think you are just wasting my time with your posts. I posted this news
> message to keep people up to date with security.

Didn't read that way. Still doesn't.

> >> Although Windows NT was designed with VMS as its model. The two are
very
> >> different.
> >
> > Oh yes. Strange that the designers happened to share the same names,
> > though? All of 'em?
>
> You are making a point about peoples names. I am making a point about the
> result of the end product. Which is more significant?

They were designed by the same (approximate) team, led by Dave Cutler. NT
3.0 came with a MOTIF interface (very DEC), only ran on a DEC CPU, and bore
a remarkable resemblence to the VMS successor, which happened to be
code-named NT (for number two thousand. Should have been NTT, in my view).
That was rejected by DEC. It came in two flavours - a "headless" server (no
GUI) and a Workstation version that could (in the original plan) provide a
GUI for any server being administered. In fact, just like DECwindows.

> Honestly, the last time I worked on a VAX it was in my junior year in
> college working at a small company in Framingham, Massachusetts USA. Then
I
> wrote code for the VMS TCP/IP stack. Since then, I have not been involved
> with VMS at all...

Point taken - although it takes a brave man to admit working with early
versions of UCX. I was one of the poor sods who had to use it... ;o)

H1K

Hairy One Kenobi wrote:

> "Imhotep" <> wrote in message
> news:77edneB_b91Y9LreRVn-...
>> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
>>
>> > "Imhotep" <> wrote in message
>> > news:EvGdnTH-...
>> >> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >> > Erm.. you did, I think, when you had a go at 'em for not releasing
>> >> > something that (presumably) failed testing.
>> >>
>> >> I think you assumed some things. You know what they say about
>> > assuming...In
>> >> stead try read the post literally. It was meant to warm people about a
>> >> security hole that MS people are STILL vulnerable for.
>> >
>> > Nope. There was some self-satisfied FUD in there. Please go back and
>> > reread your own posts...
>>
>> I think you are just wasting my time with your posts. I posted this news
>> message to keep people up to date with security.
>
> Didn't read that way. Still doesn't.

Well, maybe you are reading too much or too little into it. )

>> >> Although Windows NT was designed with VMS as its model. The two are
> very
>> >> different.
>> >
>> > Oh yes. Strange that the designers happened to share the same names,
>> > though? All of 'em?
>>
>> You are making a point about peoples names. I am making a point about the
>> result of the end product. Which is more significant?
>
> They were designed by the same (approximate) team, led by Dave Cutler. NT
> 3.0 came with a MOTIF interface (very DEC), only ran on a DEC CPU, and
> bore a remarkable resemblence to the VMS successor, which happened to be
> code-named NT (for number two thousand. Should have been NTT, in my view).
> That was rejected by DEC. It came in two flavours - a "headless" server
> (no GUI) and a Workstation version that could (in the original plan)
> provide a GUI for any server being administered. In fact, just like
> DECwindows.
>
>> Honestly, the last time I worked on a VAX it was in my junior year in
>> college working at a small company in Framingham, Massachusetts USA. Then
> I
>> wrote code for the VMS TCP/IP stack. Since then, I have not been involved
>> with VMS at all...
>
> Point taken - although it takes a brave man to admit working with early
> versions of UCX. I was one of the poor sods who had to use it... ;o)

That was my job cleaning up the crap in the stack...did it for an entire
summer, 70+ hours a week. It was good experience.

> H1K

Jim Watt wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:15:31 -0400, Imhotep <>
> wrote:
>
>>Jim Watt wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:43:55 -0400, Imhotep <>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jim Watt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:15:51 -0400, Imhotep <>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> You really are a sad little obsessive wanker.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jim Watt
>>>>> http://www.gibnet.com
>>>>
>>>>...and you a pathetic man who hides behind tough words and antagonist
>>>>ways to hide the fact of your utter uselessness...
>>>
>>> so you say.
>>>
>>>>Still waiting on you description of password hacking. Jim, face it,
>>>>you're all talk...
>>>
>>> I never said I was was going to post information on hacking and have
>>> no intention of doing so.
>>
>>You are doing the "Texas two step" and dancing around the issue. You can,
>>as I did, describe how it works without showing people code. You just do
>>not know and, as such, will not admit it. I know your game Jim. We all
>>know your game. You are a foolish impostor.
>
> Only a Queen gets to use the Royal 'we'

Sorry, I am American. We fought (and kicked your ass) over that topic a long
time ago....

>>As for articles, at least I try to help people here by submitting articles
>>about what is going on in the World of computers.
>
> yes oh great one, what did we do without you ...

Yet, again you're giving the "Texas two step" by not directly addressing the
topic at hand. You did not answer the question about password hacking
because it is beyond your knowledge. Rather than just saying "I am not sure
how that works", you try to change the topic; how pathetic.

Again try using your time actually contributing articles or something
(anything) to this newsgroup instead of being a lame ass fool....but I
guess old habits die hard, eh Jim?

> get a life.

Got a great one Jim, and you?

> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:10:33 -0400, Imhotep <>
wrote:

>Yet, again you're giving the "Texas two step" by not directly addressing the
>topic at hand. You did not answer the question about password hacking
>because it is beyond your knowledge.

So you say, however the title of this group is alt.computer.security
and security does not include publishing hacking tutorials.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

Jim Watt wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:10:33 -0400, Imhotep <>
> wrote:
>
>>Yet, again you're giving the "Texas two step" by not directly addressing
>>the topic at hand. You did not answer the question about password hacking
>>because it is beyond your knowledge.
>
> So you say, however the title of this group is alt.computer.security
> and security does not include publishing hacking tutorials.
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com


There you go dancing around the answer! You can explain without code
snippets. So, Jim let's hear it. You've had plenty of time to search the
web by now....let's hear it...come on give it your best shot. I promise I
won't laugh at you...well, I will *try* anyway. I promise.

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:48:15 -0400, Imhotep <>
wrote:

>Jim Watt wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:10:33 -0400, Imhotep <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Yet, again you're giving the "Texas two step" by not directly addressing
>>>the topic at hand. You did not answer the question about password hacking
>>>because it is beyond your knowledge.
>>
>> So you say, however the title of this group is alt.computer.security
>> and security does not include publishing hacking tutorials.
>> --
>> Jim Watt
>> http://www.gibnet.com
>
>
>There you go dancing around the answer! You can explain without code
>snippets. So, Jim let's hear it. You've had plenty of time to search the
>web by now....let's hear it...come on give it your best shot. I promise I
>won't laugh at you...well, I will *try* anyway. I promise.

Do you need an explanation of 'get a life' ?
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

Jim, that is utter bollox!!

In an adversarial field there is no better way to succeed than by
studying what your opponent is doing.

Steve

Jim Watt wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:10:33 -0400, Imhotep <>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Yet, again you're giving the "Texas two step" by not directly addressing the
>>topic at hand. You did not answer the question about password hacking
>>because it is beyond your knowledge.
>
>
> So you say, however the title of this group is alt.computer.security
> and security does not include publishing hacking tutorials.
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 23:44:20 +0100, Steve Welsh <>
wrote:

>In an adversarial field there is no better way to succeed than by
>studying what your opponent is doing.

I've got nothing against study, but whats the point of giving
a tutorial to wannabe's ?

If this was a forum to discouss counterterrorism would it
be right to give a recipe for making WMD in your garden
shed?
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com