All Things Microsoft > Microsoft as a Company

Microsoft security chief bitten by rogue dialler

<< < (3/3)

Refalm:

--- Quote from: Jack2000 ---:) stupid bums :)

Here at my country we have solid PPPoE (router/server protection) security :)
you do not use Dial-up anymore :)

(PPPoE conncection is still a form of dial-up but it uses lan cable
to connect to the router and .... blahidi blah....
the phone company gets fucked over for not being in the loop)
--- End quote ---

I've got a phone modem too. You can't blame someone for having a phone modem.

muzzy:

--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---What are the usual exploits rogue diallers take advantage off then?
--- End quote ---


My point is, and you don't seem to deny, that you've resorted to abductive logic instead of the typical deductive kind. Unfortunately, abduction isn't sound reasoning, and only works if there aren't any significant unknown information. You're saying that just because the attack typically happens in some way, that must be the way it happened in this specific case. You're making this conclusion because you cannot know of any other way the infection could have happened. From my point of view, this is ignorance and not insight.

You see, if X implies Y, and you only know Y is true, you cannot say that X has happened unless you know for certain that there's no other way Y could be true. In this case, you definitely don't have such certainty, and I'm sure you admit it yourself as well.

It's like saying that since you can make people smile by drugging them, you all must be drugged if you smile at the logic in this sentence. Or did you know that you can make people post to microsuck forums by shoving a pineapple up their ass? What does that tell about you all? Get the point? :)

Aloone_Jonez:
Fair enough muzzy but you haven't as of yet been able to provide an alternative explanation.

Infact it doesn't matter how he got hit, the point is  Microsoft's head of security should know what he's doing when it comes to securing his system and if he did it wouldn't have been attacked.

mobrien_12:

--- Quote from: muzzy ---
It's like saying that since you can make people smile by drugging them, you all must be drugged if you smile at the logic in this sentence.
--- End quote ---



Umm, no.  It's like saying that the most common reason for being drunk is taking alcohol and that if you look drunk you must have been drinking.  Sure, you could be having an adverse reaction to a prescription  medicine, or a stroke, but the overwhelming probability is that you've been drinking.

What you are saying is a well known fallacy called reduction ad absurdium where you try to reduce an argument to something so simple that it seems ridiculous.  It's not valid logic, because it ignores all the other facts involved.  

It is well known that IE with its stupid activeX security model can infect the hell out of a windows machine with drive by installs.  It is a fact that this would not have happened if he was on a Linux or BSD machine.  The fact is that the head of MS security in England can't keep his own computer secure, while most of US can, even when using windows.

hm_murdock:
It's all because people in upper and middle management positions typically are the lowest examples of intelligence on the Earth.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page