|
|
Posted by Baho Utot on 01/24/08 21:22
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Baho Utot wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
[putolin]
>> I see, May we have the knowledge of what your qualifications are?
>>
>
> Over 40 years of programming, over 20 of that in TCP/IP. Including
> working on the internals of the protocol.
Oh then you know Jon Postel. Any way I don't believe you have that
experience. Sorry Jerry.
I could tell you of my experience but it is not relevant as I don't have an
ego to satisfy.
>
>>> I agree the RFC's indicate how something *should* operate.
>>
>> The RFCs in comment here are Standards......... or as others have said
>>
>
> Sure. But that does NOT mean there are not holes in the protocol which
> can be used by hackers.
Yes there are holes that can be exploited, but not as easily as you think.
[putolin]
>
>>> These guys have no *real* idea what they're talking about, and no
>>> knowledge of how to exploit the holes in the protocols.
>>
>> You don't know that nor can you prove that.
>>
>
> You've already proven that, Baho, by your lack of understanding. You
> think RFC's are the only thing going. Sorry, Charlie. They show how
> things *should work* - but don't go into what *can* be done by a hacker.
>
What don't I understand, you keep saying that but it don't make it true.
Want to tell me what I have for dinner?
>>> But they
>>> continue to refer you to Wikipedia and RFC's to prove their case.
>>>
>>
>> What!!!!!!!!
>>
>> THE RFCs aren't real....
>>
>
> I never said the RFC's aren't real. Don't put words in my mouth.
I am not...You imply they are not to be followed or of no value.
[putolin]
>
>> Besides I don't have a case to prove.
>>
>
> I really don't give a damn. I have nothing to prove.
OK
>
>>> The problem is - they prove nothing. But they're too stoopid to
>>> understand that.
>>
[putolin]
>
> Go ahead. Keep quoting the RFC's. It continues to show how little you
> understand what *can* be done.
I know what can be done, I don't live under a rock.
[putolin]
> How little you really understand.
I understand more than you give credit
>
> But it's obvious - you're only arguing to argue.
How so?
I posted facts and information, you posted.... well nothing but your rants.
> You're another I guess I'm just going to have to *plonk* you again - like
I did in a.w.w.
Thank you!
> You were no more intelligent there, and we're glad you're gone.
>
What do you have a mouse in your pocket?
--
Dancin in the ruins tonight
Tayo'y Mga Pinoy
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|