DDLCMS question?

[Little Dragon]

im so supirsed this thread didnt get locked?

Leave it as: DDL CMS, DID have the allow_url_include exploit, however now, thanks to a few webmasters bringing it up, NOT badmouthing, it has been updated, and now is not vunerable to this exploit.
@Little Dragon, i think you are taking everything the wrong way, and instead of taking this as constructive criticism, for future dev, you have taken it as flame.
As for JmZ getting frustrated at you, i think he is just retaliating to your insults.

Thanks Curtis for the reply. But where did I insult this guy?

The exploit was fixed and confirmed on the test site (which is undisclosed by the way). I reported the fix on like page 2 of this thread.

Read pages 3, 4 of this thread, where JmZ started.

From the beginning, I said to JmZ, that the exploit was fixed, and asked him to go find something productive to do. But no.

After I clearly stated that the exploit WAS FIXED even before it was reported to me, JmZ keeps coming back and repeatedly blurting out the same thing "DDL CMS has exploits" -- am I to ignore that? To let people think the script has exploits when I have fixed them? No, I want people to know that the exploit was fixed, so I 'm going to reply that "No, it's been fixed." So why must JmZ keep coming back 5, 6, 7 times, even more, to say things like "your script has exploits" and "I'm merely pointing out a fact" ? What should I make of this? Is this really necessary? Why so much effort from JmZ to stir up strife and controversy?

This thread is about DDLCMS. It's my responsibility to hear what people say and everyone, (everyone but JmZ) has given me helpful information. All JmZ has done is make sly comments like "you fixed one of many" and "too bad if you can't find them" etc etc, stirring up strife and controversy, hijacked the thread, and attempted to fill people's minds with the notion that the script has security holes and exploits, when in fact, it does not.

What could I have done? Ignore him? Let him post his BS on this thread about my script having exploits?

No, only one thing i could do -- reply, and repeat myself, that the exploit was fixed. Now, I'm under fire for "arguing"?