Meh. I replied to something similar off-list.
"Leaking" a pdf with 'e:\nethome\joe_kitten_lover' doesn't remotely "prove"
anything. If I create a user called MayIMommaDogFaceToTheBannanPatch and
"leaked" a pdf, it doesn't mean Steve Martin was culpable. This is a
non-issue, no matter how much you might want to create some fanciful "bonsai
kitten" theory to get Joe in trouble, dawg.
t
(Fixing rejected post)
Meh. I replied to something similar off-list.
"Leaking" a pdf with 'e:\nethome\joe_kitten_lover' doesn't remotely "prove" anything. If I create a user called MayIMommaDogFaceToTheBannanPatch and "leaked" a pdf, it doesn't mean Steve Martin was culpable. This is a non-issue, no matter how much you might want to create some fanciful "bonsai kitten" theory to get Joe in trouble, dawg.
t
From: WebDawg [mailto:webdawg@gmail.com]
>
>
> "Leaking" a pdf with `e:\nethome\joe_kitten_lover' doesn't remotely
> "prove" anything. If I create a user called
> MayIMommaDogFaceToTheBannanPatch and "leaked" a pdf, it doesn't mean
> Steve Martin was culpable.
Nor do IP addresses prove anything, still people use them.
It is good enough reason to search his computer. If the poor user does
not know paths are embedded, he's likely to get himself into
Thor (Hammer of God) wrote:
> "Leaking" a pdf with 'e:\nethome\joe_kitten_lover' doesn't remotely
> "prove" anything. If I create a user called
> MayIMommaDogFaceToTheBannanPatch and "leaked" a pdf, it doesn't mean
> Steve Martin was culpable. This is a non-issue, no matter how much you
> might want to create some fanciful "bonsai kitten" theory to get Joe in
> trouble, dawg.
Oddly, or not, that doyen of security sensibility, Microsoft, disagrees
with you.
