Is DNSSEC supported by Windows?

  • Thread starter Thread starter totojepast
  • Start date Start date
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:29:00 -0700, Dan
<Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>The technology industry is mainly in denial about Chris Cquirke,
>mvp's research and now Dan K's research with DNS
>Pollution and the biggest reason this is such a big problem is the NT source
>code that has been leaked out over the Internet in the past and is solid
>external defense but has no true internal safety like DOS (Disk Operating
>System).

I don't know what it is you're smoking, but it certainly doesn't seem
healthy for you.
 
Here is more evidence:

http://www.doxpara.com/

and from the final paragraphs or perhaps you guys just don't trust
researchers or want to be in denial about everything and see the 'Net as oh
so secure and safe


So, does that mean its always better to attack DNS than BGP? Oh, you
competitive people would like things to be so simple, wouldn’t you Pilosov
and I talked for about a half hour at Defcon, and I’ve got nothing but
respect for his work. Lets look at the other side of things for a moment.
First, BGP controls how you route to your name server — if not your recursive
server, which may be inside your organization and thus immune to exterior
routing protocol attack, then the authoritative servers your recursive
servers depend on. Something like this actually happened recently — witness
the curious case of the Unauthorized L Roots, and note the astonishingly
familiar potential attacks being described. Yes, that’s precisely the
scenario of BGP used to hijack root DNS servers — with such hijacking
actually being noticed.

More importantly, much of my talk, in which I discuss the impacts of MITM
attacks, applies to Kapela and Pilosov’s work as well. It’s 2008, we still
don’t have secure email, and that’s just as much of a problem in the face of
BGP attacks as it is in the face of DNS attacks.

So, in summary, it’s an interesting side discussion regarding the
similarities, differences, and overlaps between DNS and BGP attacks. BGP
has far fewer potential attackers, fewer necessary defenders, is a much less
agile attack, and is way easier to monitor forensically (and indeed, with
companies like Renesys, is being monitored forensically). But so what? It
can work, and when it does, it can do much of the same damage we were afraid
of via DNS.

We have now had three attacks, in one year, that underscore the
fundamentally untrustworthy nature of routing. DNS, BGP, and SNMPv3 all
underscore the fact that the network should only be trusted as a best-effort
data transmission system — that if you want to make sure everything’s OK, you
can’t just assume — you need to cryptographically authenticate, you need to
cryptographically encrypt, and you need to do these things to a level of
security beyond “secure unless there’s an attacker.â€

A lot of us — myself included, when I first started really looking at SSL —
thought we were already distrusting the network. We weren’t. That’s what
Mike Perry’s telling us, that’s what Mike Zusman’s telling us, and that’s
what I’m telling you.

There are some real discussions to be had. It’s 2008. Where’s secure
email? Why is almost every autoupdater not from Microsoft thoroughly broken?
What is going on with non-browser network clients that can’t handle traffic
from an untrusted server? How are we going to migrate the web, and indeed
all commercial network activity, to authenticated and encrypted protocols
that respect the fundamentally untrustworthy nature of the network?

DNS vs. BGP vs. SNMPv3 is inside baseball. The reality is as follows:

Weaknesses in authentication and encryption, some which have been known to
at least some degree for quite some time and many of which are sourced in the
core design of the system, continue to pose a threat to the Internet
infrastructure at large, both by corrupting routing, and making those
corrupted routes problematic.

The question is what to do about it.

(That all being said, I’ll be writing shortly with an update on defenses
against DNS. There be news.)

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers
can share and discover new web pages.

August 27, 2008 | Filed Under Uncategorized


"Root Kit" wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:29:00 -0700, Dan
> <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >The technology industry is mainly in denial about Chris Cquirke,
> >mvp's research and now Dan K's research with DNS
> >Pollution and the biggest reason this is such a big problem is the NT source
> >code that has been leaked out over the Internet in the past and is solid
> >external defense but has no true internal safety like DOS (Disk Operating
> >System).
>
> I don't know what it is you're smoking, but it certainly doesn't seem
> healthy for you.
>
 
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 04:30:00 -0700, Dan wrote:

> Here is more evidence:
>
> http://www.doxpara.com/
>
> and from the final paragraphs or perhaps you guys just don't trust
> researchers or want to be in denial about everything and see the 'Net as oh
> so secure and safe

<sigh>

No one is disputing the _potential_ for the DNS issue to be a big problem.
The simple fact of the matter is that it isn't currently a big problem, and
there are patches available for it.
Your statement, to which root kit responded, claiming that this is a
problem due to source code that leaked 4 years ago is the problem and that
Windows NT (and you really need to stop using that term as it no longer
applies) has "no internal safety like DOS (disk operating system)" is
complete and utter rubbish and shows that simply don't have a clue what
you're talking about. You simply throw around terms and concepts that you
lift from other people's writings and don't have any original thoughts of
your own. The way you use these terms and concepts is a clear demonstration
that you simply don't understand the issues at even a basic level. You're
nothing more than a parrot.

--
Paul Adare
MVP - Identity Lifecycle Manager
http://www.identit.ca
You can't go home again, unless you set $HOME.
 
<sigh> to each his own Paul -- I take things from the consumer perpective and
I was saying how when XP Pro. SP2 fully updated in September 2007 was hacked
--- the hackers stole it all while connected to the APS intranet via VPN.
Anyway, I have publicly posted the denial of service error that happened at
the same time while connected to Windows 98 Second Edition and that is
because as Chris Quirke, mvp has explained is because of the internal safety
of the 9x consumer source code which has MS-DOS as its maintenance operating
system. It is a fact written in books that Microsoft engineers called the NT
business source code as "Not There even though it is New Technology" because
there was no underlying maintenance operating system like DOS. Microsoft and
others can make Windows NT source code as secure on the outside which is very
true in Vista which remember I helped to beta test the external defense
network within Vista for Microsoft and it is solidly protected on the
outside. It is better protected on the inside as well but the fact is there
is not a MS-DOS replacement in XP and Vista and it is just a command.com
prompt with a text based interface instead of a GUI interface. Microsoft
just made a mistake in choosing NT over 9x and now we as a society and world
are paying for the mistake. end of story

You can make 98 SE safe by also using open source technologies like Mozilla
Firefox 2.x which has 256 bit AES cipher strength which IE does not have
until Vista and that is also a fact. You can use software like
SpywareBlaster to prevent baddies from getting on to your machine in the
first place. People like Robear, mvp do understand me and my perspective. I
hope you will broaden your mind as well to at least consider where I am
coming from. Thank you and I appreciate your thoughts despite my harsh
language.

"Paul Adare - MVP" wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 04:30:00 -0700, Dan wrote:
>
> > Here is more evidence:
> >
> > http://www.doxpara.com/
> >
> > and from the final paragraphs or perhaps you guys just don't trust
> > researchers or want to be in denial about everything and see the 'Net as oh
> > so secure and safe
>
> <sigh>
>
> No one is disputing the _potential_ for the DNS issue to be a big problem.
> The simple fact of the matter is that it isn't currently a big problem, and
> there are patches available for it.
> Your statement, to which root kit responded, claiming that this is a
> problem due to source code that leaked 4 years ago is the problem and that
> Windows NT (and you really need to stop using that term as it no longer
> applies) has "no internal safety like DOS (disk operating system)" is
> complete and utter rubbish and shows that simply don't have a clue what
> you're talking about. You simply throw around terms and concepts that you
> lift from other people's writings and don't have any original thoughts of
> your own. The way you use these terms and concepts is a clear demonstration
> that you simply don't understand the issues at even a basic level. You're
> nothing more than a parrot.
>
> --
> Paul Adare
> MVP - Identity Lifecycle Manager
> http://www.identit.ca
> You can't go home again, unless you set $HOME.
>
 
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:26:00 -0700, Dan wrote:

> <sigh> to each his own Paul -- I take things from the consumer perpective and
> I was saying how when XP Pro. SP2 fully updated in September 2007 was hacked
> --- the hackers stole it all while connected to the APS intranet via VPN.

You have offered no proof whatsoever that the APS network was even hacked,
let alone how the hack occurred, nor what the result is. All we have is a
couple of vague statements from you and given your history here and obvious
lack of understanding of the issues, I'm not about to take your word for
much of anything when it comes to computer security.

> Anyway, I have publicly posted the denial of service error that happened at
> the same time while connected to Windows 98 Second Edition

Where? What exactly is a "denial of service" error? What does Windows 98 SE
have to do with this at all?

> and that is
> because as Chris Quirke, mvp has explained is because of the internal safety
> of the 9x consumer source code which has MS-DOS as its maintenance operating
> system.

There is no such thing as a "maintenance operating system". You can't be
seriously stating that Windows 9x is inherently more secure than is Windows
2000, XP, Vista, 2003, or 2008 simply because 9x runs on top of MS-DOS.
That is a ludicrous statement and shows once again that you simply don't
have a clue what you're talking about.

> It is a fact written in books that Microsoft engineers called the NT
> business source code as "Not There even though it is New Technology" because
> there was no underlying maintenance operating system like DOS.

You've stated this before, I called it BS before and I call it BS again.
Prove the above statement. Provide the exact quote and the publication it
occurred in. Simply repeated stating something does not make it magically
come true.

> Microsoft and
> others can make Windows NT source code as secure on the outside which is very
> true in Vista which remember I helped to beta test the external defense
> network within Vista for Microsoft and it is solidly protected on the
> outside.

You really need to stop making up your own terms here. There is no such
thing as an "external defense network within Vista". So what if you beta
tested. I've been beta testing Microsoft operating systems since Windows NT
3.1. Just the fact that you were a beta tester does not mean you understand
anything about computer security.

> It is better protected on the inside as well but the fact is there
> is not a MS-DOS replacement in XP and Vista

So what, that has nothing at all to do with computer security.

> and it is just a command.com
> prompt with a text based interface instead of a GUI interface.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

> Microsoft
> just made a mistake in choosing NT over 9x and now we as a society and world
> are paying for the mistake. end of story

Oh, so according to Dan, the security expert, Microsoft made a mistake. You
have a very high opinion of yourself if you think you know better than the
security experts who work for Microsoft. Absolutely incredible.

>
> You can make 98 SE safe by also using open source technologies like Mozilla
> Firefox 2.x which has 256 bit AES cipher strength which IE does not have
> until Vista and that is also a fact. You can use software like
> SpywareBlaster to prevent baddies from getting on to your machine in the
> first place.

Windows 98 will never be even half as secure as either XP or Vista or any
operating system released since Windows 98. You are deluding yourself by
believing otherwise. If you want to continue to do so then great, knock
yourself out, but coming in here and trying to convince others who may not
know any better is irresponsible and dangerous.

> People like Robear, mvp do understand me and my perspective. I
> hope you will broaden your mind as well to at least consider where I am
> coming from. Thank you and I appreciate your thoughts despite my harsh
> language.

I will not consider where you're coming from as you simply don't have a
clue what you're talking about. You don't understand the issues involved,
you've simply latched on to a position held by Chris Quirke, which you
don't even clearly understand, and you parrot nonsense here.
You are as dangerous to computer security as most malware and viruses.

--
Paul Adare
MVP - Identity Lifecycle Manager
http://www.identit.ca
A CONS is an object which cares. -- Bernie Greenberg
 
Steve covered the scenario from the "bad site" authors point
of view - he wants you to visit his site for whatever reason.

Alun covered the scenario from the "denial of service" authors
point of view - all he wants is to either keep you from visiting
the correct site, or use DNS poisoning to generate excess
traffic to some other site for whatever reason.

"~BD~" <~BD~@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:%23nMuXYaCJHA.5656@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Might this be relevant here too?
>
> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080827/D92QSA880.html
>
> Dave
> --
>
>
>
 
"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6A3A0C3E-E465-4657-94FA-8C62DEE9DCB9@microsoft.com...
> What Paul does not realize and if he followed US-Cert proper procedure and
> doxpara website and the Sans Storm Center then he would realize that DNS
> Pollution is and was a huge problem.

It can be a problem, agreed.

> The technology industry is mainly in
> denial about Chris Cquirke, mvp's research

Which of Chris' ideas are you referring to here?

> and now Dan K's research with DNS Pollution

It looks like you jumped tracks here - are we talking about
Chris Q or Dan K?

> and the biggest reason this is such a big problem is the NT source
> code that has been leaked out over the Internet in the past and is solid
> external defense but has no true internal safety like DOS (Disk Operating
> System).

None of this has anything to do with source code leaks. The basic
groundwork for the internet was laid out when trust was inherent
in the network. All connected computers were going to be well
behaved - there was no need to build any authentication into the
basic protocols. In hindsight, that was not a good decision, but
how were the pioneers to know that untrustworthy computers
would be connected and trying to break software at every chance?

Back then, most everyone was just trying to make good use of
the new technology of computering. Now we have miscreants
showing how easily things break.

> The majority of people here are indeed smart but they have followed
> their senses and bought the company line hook line and sinker and did not
> go
> far enough and ask why the individual operating systems cannot be made
> safer
> on the inside

They are being made safer. Some are geared more toward
ease of use and security takes a back seat.

> and what is the use of all this external security that will
> indeed crumble if there is no internal safety

Externals are needed because some malware "lives" external
to the desktop OS.

> of Disk Operating System or an equivalent

It's been a long time since I have seen an OS that wasn't
a Disk OS. Are you referring to MS-DOS or DR-DOS
or any other specific DOS?

> and all users are left with is a cheap command.com interface that
> may be satisfactory for many but sucks for the individual home consumers
> who
> I represent.

Lost without a GUI? The idea Chris is talking about with
respect to DOS as a maintenance OS is that newer OSes
don't have a fallback simple Disk OS that you can use for
troubleshooting or possible recovery. The "recovery console"
falls short of what would be needed for some kinds of revovery
- not because of the lack of GUI, but because of the lack of
available functions.

> Sure, the price of having two lines of source code is expensive

Huh? Two lines of source code is not a very big program.
A virus can be written in one. :o)

> but how does one company have the right to say which line of source code
> is
> superior and if it is so superior how come we suddenly are having so many
> problems with security.

It's their code - they can say whatever they want to about it.
From your perspective (the average user it seems) "problems"
with security means "access denied" messages when all you
want to do is look at your own photos, on your own computer.
This is actually increased security over the older OSes that had
no file system security at all. It is just one example of how an
increase in security negatively effects the "ease of use" experience.

> It is an easy concept because if you want all your
> computers linked as one and one gets a virus then all the others can share
> that virus and sicken too.

It appears to me that you have jumped tracks again.
What concept? Are you talking about diversity in OSes on
the net? Sure, it is a good thing - but there is still plenty of
"sameness" out there for malware to survive.

> Now, remember if we backtrack and have each
> computer become a unique individual that creates and learns without the
> need
> of the collective then we are making progress.

Stay in the real world, please.

> Do we really need computers
> to become like the Borg where all the computers are connected to one super
> computer. Why not let man and womankinds creativity flow from each
> machine
> and not have to be so reliant upon the others that the machine can not do
> anything without checking what machines b,c,d,e, and f are doing before
> the
> machine is even confident enough to proceed.

Because that is how it works, cooperation between systems -
each performing its function for the benefit of the whole. To
resist is futile (sorry - couldn't help myself) - seriously, it is
necessary in order to coordinate the communications link.

> I am purposely stretching the
> truth and exagerrating but I am making a point on how the entire industry
> went wrong when the wrong source code was chosen.

No, what went wrong was that we became too entrenched and
dependent on what was already in place by the time we realized
it could have been designed better for security. We have applied
bandages and chewing gum to keep the system viable in an
increasingly hostile environment when a rewrite was really needed.
Rewrite was out of the question because we needed no interuption
in the operation.

Another (new) network could be built with security in mind and
populated by new pioneers - when enough bugs are worked out
businesses could migrate to the new paradigm without disruption.

Sorry - maybe is sci-fi too.

> The only real solution is
> for Microsoft to bring the new source code to the market that is
> internally
> safe with a maintenance operating system and also externally secure.

Microsoft has nothing to do with it. They didn't create the underlying
structure that is the internet - and that is the issue here.

> "~BD~" wrote:
>
>> You're welcome, Dan.
>>
>> For the most part, I understand your posts - all of them!

Can I borrow your decoder ring? :o/

>> Stick with it! :)
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> --
>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:FA0EE75A-8851-4F30-99E7-C763FFC05BFC@microsoft.com...
>> > <Warning Long Story --- mainly for Steve Riley {MSFT} benefit as well
>> > as
>> > anyone interested and caring enough not to give some smart aleck
>> > response}:->
>> >
>> > Thanks BD.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
 
Thank you for clarifying! :)

Dave

--
"FromTheRafters" <erratic@ne.rr.com> wrote in message
news:OqDLTYjCJHA.2496@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Steve covered the scenario from the "bad site" authors point
> of view - he wants you to visit his site for whatever reason.
>
> Alun covered the scenario from the "denial of service" authors
> point of view - all he wants is to either keep you from visiting
> the correct site, or use DNS poisoning to generate excess
> traffic to some other site for whatever reason.
>
> "~BD~" <~BD~@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:%23nMuXYaCJHA.5656@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Might this be relevant here too?
>>
>> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080827/D92QSA880.html
>>
>> Dave
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
 
"FromTheRafters" <erratic@ne.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%234SOjHkCJHA.4704@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

Said "Can I borrow your decoder ring?" :o/

You have done an excelent job without it!

I'd like to thank you for taking the time and trouble to answer Dan in the
manner you did. I'm fairly sure he will not wish to argue with you. Thanks!
:)

Dave

--
 
I appreciate all the replies. My main objective has already been
accomplished which is just to get people to think about external security and
internal safety of 2 different source codes which are the NT source code
which is in use today and the 9x source code of yesterday. Thank you for all
of your feedback. I will continue to review it and answer as best as I can.

"~BD~" wrote:

>
> "FromTheRafters" <erratic@ne.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:%234SOjHkCJHA.4704@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
> Said "Can I borrow your decoder ring?" :o/
>
> You have done an excelent job without it!
>
> I'd like to thank you for taking the time and trouble to answer Dan in the
> manner you did. I'm fairly sure he will not wish to argue with you. Thanks!
> :)
>
> Dave
>
> --
>
>
>
 
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 00:57:00 -0700, Dan
<Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I appreciate all the replies. My main objective has already been
>accomplished which is just to get people to think about external security and
>internal safety of 2 different source codes which are the NT source code
>which is in use today and the 9x source code of yesterday.

There is no reason to get people to think about some imaginary
security topics that exist only in your head. You never had any
objective.
 
Tra, la, la --- the b_nice person is back -- oh yeah, smiles

"Root Kit" wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 00:57:00 -0700, Dan
> <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >I appreciate all the replies. My main objective has already been
> >accomplished which is just to get people to think about external security and
> >internal safety of 2 different source codes which are the NT source code
> >which is in use today and the 9x source code of yesterday.
>
> There is no reason to get people to think about some imaginary
> security topics that exist only in your head. You never had any
> objective.
>
 
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 03:45:01 -0700, Dan wrote:

> Tra, la, la --- the b_nice person is back -- oh yeah, smiles

You are mentally unbalanced.

--
Paul Adare
MVP - Identity Lifecycle Manager
http://www.identit.ca
Netnews is like yelling, "Anyone want to buy a used car?" in a crowded
theater.
 
whatever, b_nice is a jerk

"Paul Adare - MVP" wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 03:45:01 -0700, Dan wrote:
>
> > Tra, la, la --- the b_nice person is back -- oh yeah, smiles
>
> You are mentally unbalanced.
>
> --
> Paul Adare
> MVP - Identity Lifecycle Manager
> http://www.identit.ca
> Netnews is like yelling, "Anyone want to buy a used car?" in a crowded
> theater.
>
 
You, "Paul Adare - MVP", *still* haven't bothered to fix the error on your
web site, viz:-

Sign Up for ILM 2007 Certificate Management Training
IdentIT is offering public training on ILM 2007 Certificate Management. The
course covers the fundamentals of ILM 2007 Certificate Management and
provides you with hands-on experience with the product before deploying ILM
2007 Certificate Management in your organization.

The following dates have been booked for ILM 2007 Training:

a.. Mississauga, Ontario, Canada - November 13 - 16, 2007 - Click here to
register!

b.. New York City, NY, USA - TBA

For registration information, please send email to info@identit.c

***********************************************************

Dave

--
 
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 20:27:12 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

> You, "Paul Adare - MVP", *still* haven't bothered to fix the error on your
> web site, viz:-

The state of my web site has no bearing in this news group and is really
not any of your concern.

--
Paul Adare
MVP - Identity Lifecycle Manager
http://www.identit.ca
Command: Statement presented by a human and accepted by a computer in such
a manner as to make the human feel as if he is in control.
 
"Paul Adare - MVP" <pkadare@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aqj9y2tbu91l$.16zxefuf7t9eb$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 20:27:12 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> You, "Paul Adare - MVP", *still* haven't bothered to fix the error on
>> your
>> web site, viz:-
>
> The state of my web site has no bearing in this news group and is really
> not any of your concern.
>
> --
> Paul Adare
> MVP - Identity Lifecycle Manager
> http://www.identit.ca
> Command: Statement presented by a human and accepted by a computer in
> such
> a manner as to make the human feel as if he is in control.


I beg to differ, Mr Adare.

You publish your web site in your signature block. If you want no-one
reading here to visit, I suggest you remove it.

Having made such a visit, I brought the out-of-date information to your
attention on a number of occasions.

You ridicule Dan, yet purport to be a 'professional' yourself. How can you
expect folk reading here to believe *you* when the very heart of your
business, your web site, is not accurate? Think about it!

Dave
 
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:32:07 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

> Having made such a visit, I brought the out-of-date information to your
> attention on a number of occasions.

Good for you, do you want a medal or something? I really could not care
less what you happen to bring to my attention, it has no bearing on this
news group, and unless you control 50,000 plus seats you're not even close
to my target audience.

--
Paul Adare
MVP - Identity Lifecycle Manager
http://www.identit.ca
How was Thomas J. Watson buried? 9 edge down.
 
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:32:07 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

> How can you
> expect folk reading here to believe *you* when the very heart of your
> business, your web site, is not accurate? Think about it!

My web site is not even close to the very heart of my business. So please,
keep your posts on-topic and your useless little comments about my web site
out of this news group.

--
Paul Adare
MVP - Identity Lifecycle Manager
http://www.identit.ca
Programming is an unnatural act.
 
Dave,
I really do not appreciate your language.
Our Web site may be out of date (my fault to be honest).
But, it is not inaccurate.
Please learn the meaning of the word inaccurate and get back to me.
Jeesh.....
Brian

"~BD~" <~BD~@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:eaCt1fuCJHA.4576@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> "Paul Adare - MVP" <pkadare@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:aqj9y2tbu91l$.16zxefuf7t9eb$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 20:27:12 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:
>>
>>> You, "Paul Adare - MVP", *still* haven't bothered to fix the error on
>>> your
>>> web site, viz:-
>>
>> The state of my web site has no bearing in this news group and is really
>> not any of your concern.
>>
>> --
>> Paul Adare
>> MVP - Identity Lifecycle Manager
>> http://www.identit.ca
>> Command: Statement presented by a human and accepted by a computer in
>> such
>> a manner as to make the human feel as if he is in control.
>
>
> I beg to differ, Mr Adare.
>
> You publish your web site in your signature block. If you want no-one
> reading here to visit, I suggest you remove it.
>
> Having made such a visit, I brought the out-of-date information to your
> attention on a number of occasions.
>
> You ridicule Dan, yet purport to be a 'professional' yourself. How can you
> expect folk reading here to believe *you* when the very heart of your
> business, your web site, is not accurate? Think about it!
>
> Dave
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top