Upon clicking the link, I get the following error message (from outlook):
"The command line argument is not valid. Verify the switch you are using."
Greg
On 3 Oct 2007 16:06:29 -0000, jinc4fareijj (at) hotmail (dot) com [email concealed]
<jinc4fareijj (at) hotmail (dot) com [email concealed]> wrote:
> Yipiya Ypipiya yah yeah. Here is a 0day! hurra mIRC pwns your Windozes! (ref. pdp)
>
> send this to a user and make him double click on it (masquerade it with pink fore/background color and say 'free pr0n click here ->' it works all the time! damned perverts):
> mailto:%xx../../../../../../../../../../../windows/system32/calc.exe".ba
t
>
> Now the question is, should we say *0day* for a bug in a core element that is WELL KNOWN by everyone (reported months ago), and will be patched, or should we try to get credits for finding a *vector* as pdp did with the supposed *acrobat reader pdf bug* ?
>
> Fame kills bugs.
>
mIRC: 6.2
Outlook 2007 (fully patched)
Upon clicking the link, I get the following error message (from outlook):
"The command line argument is not valid. Verify the switch you are using."
Greg
On 3 Oct 2007 16:06:29 -0000, jinc4fareijj (at) hotmail (dot) com [email concealed]
<jinc4fareijj (at) hotmail (dot) com [email concealed]> wrote:
> Yipiya Ypipiya yah yeah. Here is a 0day! hurra mIRC pwns your Windozes! (ref. pdp)
>
> send this to a user and make him double click on it (masquerade it with pink fore/background color and say 'free pr0n click here ->' it works all the time! damned perverts):
> mailto:%xx../../../../../../../../../../../windows/system32/calc.exe".ba
t
>
> Now the question is, should we say *0day* for a bug in a core element that is WELL KNOWN by everyone (reported months ago), and will be patched, or should we try to get credits for finding a *vector* as pdp did with the supposed *acrobat reader pdf bug* ?
>
> Fame kills bugs.
>
[ reply ]