Look. The ONLY point I was trying to make is that his browser was NOT hijacked like you said it could be because his results didnt match your results.
You went off on a tangent about security and hijacking and do this and do that. FINE for after the fact in case when he clicked on the link that something bad happened.... BUT THAT WASNT THE REASON FOR THE POST!!!! *I* replied and said it was hijacking, that my system was clean and that the results were the product of Black Hat spammers. You chose to go on again about scanning and security etc.... COMPLETELY disregarding anything any of us had to say about the results actually being correct. Got it?! Had fecking nothing to do with sensitivity or any such thing. Got it? Just fed up with *hijacking* thread or otherwise. All I did was tell you his results were legit. Period. Gah! On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > by the way, Ian, I would be interested in hearing any followup you have on > this. Lest Erika think I think you're stupid, I'll just mention that I > dealt with one of the early versions of that trojans at a former job site, > and at the time serveral anti-virus softwares were not detecting it. Work > put me in charge of hunting it down and quite the education in social > engineering *that* was :) > > Anyway.. professional interest ;) > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:303272 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
