Re: impossible vs. impractical
Mike Neuman (mcn@EnGarde.com)
Sun, 7 May 1995 23:29:15 -0500
> From owner-bugtraq@fc.net Sun May 7 18:48:36 1995
> When you say "impossible" in a
> scientific context, you had better mean traversing the speed of light or
> some such thing, and even then, it's based on some assumptions and
> observations and should be qualified (i.e., impossible under the most
> widely accepted current epistemology of physics).
Oh good. I think possibility has practicality implied. After all, if you
can generate an infinite amount of energy, you CAN go the speed of light
(according to the current laws of physics), so there, it's not impossible.
> Now, if you could quit wasting your time arguing over this minor point
> and get back to tracking bugs, it would probably be more fruitful.
> Which brings me to the latest version of Microsoft's spreadsheet
> distrubuted with Windows. We were doing a very simple spread sheet by
> my standards, and it computed terribly wrong values. When we took the
> same spreadsheet and plugged it into 123, it did the right thing.
> Anyone have a bug fix?
Do you have ANYTHING useful to add to this mailing list? If not, I suggest
you take yourself off of it and save us all the bother. Kill files are more
difficult in email.
ObBug: Many mountd implementations don't care about source routing. Therefore,
spoof a mount request from a trusted host, source route it through your local
machine, and create a routing entry for the trusted host routed through
localhost. When the server replies with the file handle, sniff the handle,
and your local system will automatically route the reply into nothingness.
Since very few nfsd implementations actually do access control, a filehandle
is all you need...
-Mike
mcn@EnGarde.com