OT
If you read the article, how is it that you were unaware that the central issue was XP making it easy for novice hackers to launch anonymous attacks? For Pete's sake, he even provided a link to that point from the first paragraph, and it's obvious enough from his first letter to Microsoft as well.
Furthermore, your invitation to have me attempt to hack an XP machine makes it sound like you are still unaware that hacking of XP machines is not the issue, hacking from XP machines is.
So far you have not even tried to deal with the specifics raised in the article. Instead you have brought up XP's immunity from attacks, which is not the issue, you have brought up impersonation, which is not the issue, and you have stated, "I find it laughable that you believe these musings," which does not even make a pretense of addressing the facts. If you are so right and Gibson is so wrong, it should be possible for you to explain why by dealing with the specific claims in the article. What you find laughable is irrelevant.
Finally, inviting me, a non-hacker, to try to hack anybody's machine is a complete non-sequitur. Gibson says he has been a hacker for thirty years. So far you have provided no basis for believing you instead of him. |
