Dustin wrote:
> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
> news:05KdnWNkP_iJh7HSnZ2dnUVZ7t2dnZ2d@bt.com:
>
>> Cross-posted to alt.privacy.spyware so that Dustin Cook can comment
> on
>> your view - *he* says this is "Horse ****" and he's 'da man'!
>
> In the context provided, it very much is. What does the OP mean by get
> behind your firewall? That's gibberish.
>
> Anyone who has remote desktop access and sufficient rights can change
> the configuration of the workstation (read: your computer, dumbarse
> punk). This isn't new or newsworthy and I never stated otherwise, as
> you've tried to infer.
>
> By configuration I mean more than software firewall settings, but those
> would then be up for grabs too. Of course, this doesnt help with a
> hardware firewall. Youd still have to have valid login details then. A
> remote admin isnt required, you already opened the door by sitting them
> in front of your desktop. they can do whatever you can do then.
>
>
> However, in the dimwitted context you provided, it reaks of horse-****.
> As far as your da man comment, I found your punkass didn't I?
>
> I've removed your trollish crossposting garbage. I wont provide you the
> attention you so desperately seek. I'm done playing games with you.


I'm not seeking to play games with you Dustin, I simply seek the truth.

I'm confident that 99%+ of Windows users have no clue that this can
happen and that all their anti-malware precautions will be for naught.

Am I wrong in thinking that a workstation/client can, indeed, be "owned"
as you put it and the operator be completely unaware of it?

This is serious stuff, Dustin - it's no joke.

--
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."