On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:27:04 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Erik Funkenbusch ] on Sunday 29 April 2007 10:22 \__
>
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 04:52:04 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Experts warn of .doc attacks
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote
>>>| When the document is opened it crashes the system and the malware
>>>| is automatically loaded when the computer reboots.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.computing.co.uk/vnunet/news/2188613/experts-warn-doc-attacks
>>
>> As usual, your fraudulent headlines are once again a complete and total
>> lie.
>>
>> This article is not about "The consequences of 'View=Execute'", it's the
>> consequences of buffer overflows in parsing code.
>>
>> 'View=Execute' is when applications and data are treated the same by the
>> shell, launching a document is indiscernable from running the application.
>>
>> These are different concepts. The document can execute the arbitrary code
>> whether or not you loaded it via the shell or file->Open. As such, arguing
>> that this is the consequences of a paradigm which has nothing to do with
>> the flaw is not only disingenuous, it's an outright lie.
>
> .doc files are a menace because of macros. How about that?
What century are you living in? Macro's haven't been a problem in Word for
over 10 years. The article you linked to wasn't talking about macro's
either, so stopy trying to wiggle.
|
|
