Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: for-q-clinton

Besides, I took that challenge as stated in that post, no parsing of words, you did not state the challenge was conditioned on the content of previous posts. I also did not commit myself to an undefined challenge of yours, only attemted to define one before anyone should take it.

So I'll give you 0, me 1/2. I'll be nice and still give up half since you did not correctly state the challenge you intended to give. Although I won a challenge as clearly written, I did not win one as intended, so it is a somewhat shallow victory.


433 posted on 08/30/2005 8:28:02 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies ]


To: antiRepublicrat
You're such a joke. If that makes you feel like Windows is more at risk because I didn't clearly spell out the challenge.

Actually I'm taking back the 1/2 point because I clearly did discuss physical security on the box. And you never asked for full details of the challenge. So you lose having accepted the challenge (even though you didn't know the full scope) and you can't provide a buffer overflow that can be exploited remotely.

437 posted on 08/30/2005 8:31:24 AM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson