100% Windows Exploit

[ETG]

Originally posted here by problemchild
This topic has already been discussed, including a link to this exact paper that I posted. I don't question the validity of exposing exploits, but because you chose to present this as a "tutorial," I got the feeling it was being held out as a how-to for bad guys, rather than as something useful for admins.

BTW, the Tutorials Forum is supposed to be for original tutorials, not cut and paste operations. But if you're going to cut and paste, you should at least post a link to where it came from.

http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=234485

I vistited the link you posted and the topic was discuessed earlier , but not in as much detail as I posted. You also mention in the thread you posted that you posted another thread about the subject, so in all there is at least 3 threads on this vunerability on the forum. :} You said that you posted a link to this exact same paper. I did'n find that link in the thread you linked us to, but I'm sure it's on antionline somewere. I hope some of the other new comers who had'nt seen the that post learn something. If you feel that this post is a how-to for bad guys why would you link the exact same paper?

[problemchild]

It's at the bottom of post #8.

Context goes a long way. We were discussing how widespread we thought this exploit would become, and I was responding to cwk9 that Padgett had posted a very complete how-to so I expected it to be very widespread among college kids. In no way do I question the legitimacy of presenting this information in whatever forum, because I strongly believe in full disclosure.

It's simply the cavalier attitude with which you've presented this, and other sensitive information, since you arrived at AO that makes me question your motives. Instead of just presenting it as, "OK here's how to crack Windows" you might have said "Here's a heads up to anybody who may not have heard about this already. If you use Windows in a console environment, you should be alert to this." It's all in how you present it. That was my point, not that it shouldn't have been presented.