The patches are public; but whether they actually address the perceived problem -- nor even if the perceived problem is actually a problem -- cannot be determined without knowing what the problem is.

Actually, I do. As you will find out.

I look forward to reading your patch. But I find it hard to reconcile your two statements. On one hand you admit you don't know what the problem is, yet on the other you assert you know what you are talking about. Both can't be right. IMO if you understand the patches you should be able to figure out the attack and recreate it.

I look forward to reading your patch.

I didn't offer one.

On one hand you admit you don't know what the problem is, yet on the other you assert you know what you are talking about. Both can't be right.

Of course they can. (Look back for the phrase "unfortunately necessary supposition".)

if you understand the patches

Bingo!

But that only tells us the problem that you feel needs addressing and how you've chosen to tackle it.

It doesn't tell us how you think that scenario might come about; nor what other solutions have been considered.

But enough! We've descended below what is apparently the justifiable cut-off for the depth of a discussion (>10), and all we are doing is talking at each other, so let's stop here and see what time will tell us.

---

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

No patch no point. Until you can produce a better patch stop spreading FUD.

---
$world=~s/war/peace/g