> Windows PCs will remain less secure even if the inbuilt
> security measures become overwhelmingly better than on any
> other OS.
Which they never will. This because each older version of Windows is
left in the lurch and each succeeding version becomes more and more
like the slimeware users would guard against. In fact the only
difference is perspective. What users considered intrusive several
years ago has now been spun into features by M$'s ever powerful
marketing machine.
>"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:3e0jc3tk6u73mbkacao6a28qa61558ut7b@4ax.com.. .
>>
>>>If it were that
>>>bad, it'd be happening to everybody.
>>
>> It's happened majority of home Windows machines connected to the
>> Internet, cretin.
>
>What a well reasoned, credible arguement. I`m so glad you chose not to back
>up your statements with any mere facts or statistics, because you obviously
>don`t need them :-)
I don't, because anyone with a clue knows it's true. *Rare* is the
home Windows user who has not had their PC compromised at one time or
another.
chrisv@nospam.invalid declared for all the world to hear...
> I don't, because anyone with a clue knows it's true. *Rare* is the
> home Windows user who has not had their PC compromised at one time or
> another.
Nobody I know (personally) has ever been done over. That includes non-PC
literate family members.
--
Regards
Jon
On 2007-08-21, Jon <spam@jonparker.plus.com> wrote:
> Nobody I know (personally) has ever been done over. That includes non-PC
> literate family members.
Well, sure! And all your friends and family members regularly visit
websites like crackhookers.com, drinking.gambling.net, seedyseamy.org,
warezcrackersanon, and other wholesome family sites. I'm sorry, but
Shopping.With.Barbie and Betty Lou Thelma Liz's Quilting blog don't
really present much of a threat, do they.
notbob@nothome.com declared for all the world to hear...
> On 2007-08-21, Jon <spam@jonparker.plus.com> wrote:
>
> > Nobody I know (personally) has ever been done over. That includes non-PC
> > literate family members.
>
> Well, sure! And all your friends and family members regularly visit
> websites like crackhookers.com, drinking.gambling.net, seedyseamy.org,
> warezcrackersanon
These are all my favourite sites man! Have you hijacked my browser and
had your trojan email you all my favourites?!
> and other wholesome family sites. I'm sorry, but
> Shopping.With.Barbie and Betty Lou Thelma Liz's Quilting blog don't
> really present much of a threat, do they.
Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I was merely contributing to the
discussion.
--
Regards
Jon
>chrisv@nospam.invalid declared for all the world to hear...
>> I don't, because anyone with a clue knows it's true. *Rare* is the
>> home Windows user who has not had their PC compromised at one time or
>> another.
>
>Nobody I know (personally) has ever been done over. That includes non-PC
>literate family members.
> chrisv@nospam.invalid declared for all the world to hear...
>> I don't, because anyone with a clue knows it's true. *Rare* is the
>> home Windows user who has not had their PC compromised at one time or
>> another.
>
> Nobody I know (personally) has ever been done over. That includes non-PC
> literate family members.
You must have significantly less computer owning family members than I then!
"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:aorlc31laca05bblik0fgbcbqoevipegsl@4ax.com...
> Simon Finnigan wrote:
>
>>"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:3e0jc3tk6u73mbkacao6a28qa61558ut7b@4ax.com. ..
>>>
>>>>If it were that
>>>>bad, it'd be happening to everybody.
>>>
>>> It's happened majority of home Windows machines connected to the
>>> Internet, cretin.
>>
>>What a well reasoned, credible arguement. I`m so glad you chose not to
>>back
>>up your statements with any mere facts or statistics, because you
>>obviously
>>don`t need them :-)
>
> I don't, because anyone with a clue knows it's true. *Rare* is the
> home Windows user who has not had their PC compromised at one time or
> another.
Out of about 10 familes that I help with their PC`s, one has had a machine
compromised. But then again they just plugged a machine running Windows
98SE straight onto the net - so they where using a very outdated OS. The
same kind of situation that got a number of PC`s hosting Linux distro`s
pulled offline recently actually, which I thought was quite interesting.
Everyone else got themselves a router and a firewall, and haven`t had any
problems at all. I still check their machiens out now and again, but have
never found anything on any of them.
I suppose the problem is that you simply don`t know how to secure a
computer.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:vgjkc35ekd2mbb0l9f31rbuso9frbt1tll@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:05:49 +0100, "Simon Finnigan"
> <SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>
>>"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:3e0jc3tk6u73mbkacao6a28qa61558ut7b@4ax.com. ..
>>> Conor wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <wbqdnZAgH4r7-FnbnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@comcast.com>, notbob
>>>>says...
>>>>
>>>>> I see no one has mentioned the biggest reason why Windows sucks. I
>>>>> just experienced the 3rd drive-by download/infection in three years on
>>>>> my little used Windows box. It wiped my main scsi drive. This
>>>>> occured via Firefox with both java and java scripts disabled. I've
>>>>> never experience this with Linux. It was a dual boot system I use for
>>>>> little used Windows applications and linux hacking. Now, the whole
>>>>> box is compromised and must be wiped clean.
>>>>>
>>>>That says more about your incompetency than anything.
>>>
>>> Idiot. What percentage of the population, currently connected to the
>>> Internet, would you say are "competent" in regards to computers?
>>>
>>> Starting to see the problem with Windows' insecurity, cretin?
>>>
>>>>If it were that
>>>>bad, it'd be happening to everybody.
>>>
>>> It's happened majority of home Windows machines connected to the
>>> Internet, cretin.
>>
>>What a well reasoned, credible arguement. I`m so glad you chose not to
>>back
>>up your statements with any mere facts or statistics, because you
>>obviously
>>don`t need them :-)
>
>
> While I have no idea if it has happened to the "majority" of
> home windows machines, statistically speaking, I can tell
> you that windows vulerabilities have cause infestation on
> the majority of other people's systems that I have seen.
>
> However, we're talking about Windows vs Linux, and failing
> to distinguish the actual vulnerability in these "drive-by"
> infections which is not windows itself per se but rather the
> integrated browser which a windows user is not forced to
> use.
>
> Nevertheless, even ignoring that at any given moment there
> are always holes exploitable on windows, and a few
> inevitably there for Linux as well, there is one remaining
> factor relating to security: While nothing is 100% secure,
> the prudent security level depends on the risk.
>
> The risk of being infected on a windows system is much
> higher because windows is targeted. We could argue that
> it's targeted because a hacker wants to do as much damage or
> take control of as many bots as possible or a similar
> argument that it only makes sense to focus on the masses
> since the majority of home PCs run windows, but regardless
> of the reason it is _really_ less secure as a result, and
> Windows PCs will remain less secure even if the inbuilt
> security measures become overwhelmingly better than on any
> other OS.
While I agree that a major reason Linux and other minor OS`s are not hacked
as often because they simply aren`t worth spending the effort on, I`d say
this only really affects the very lowest common denominator. The people who
stick with out of date OS`s, don`t patch them and so on. Keeping up to date
on patches etc on any OS removes the vast majority of potential for
problems. I wouldn`t agree that Windows is less secure than any other OS
because of this attention - the sooner a problem is found and corrected, the
fewer remaining issues there are in the OS. I`d suggest that there are
still a huge number of problems waiting to be found in Linux style OS`s, and
if they ever manage to become popular, then I wouldn`t be surprised if the
users find themselves in a situation where a huge number of exploits are
found quickly, meaning that their "secure" choise of OS actually spends some
significant period of time being less secure than the Windows alternative
:-)
"notbob" <notbob@nothome.com> wrote in message
news:bNOdnTydMqve9lfbnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> On 2007-08-21, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> Windows PCs will remain less secure even if the inbuilt
>> security measures become overwhelmingly better than on any
>> other OS.
>
> Which they never will. This because each older version of Windows is
> left in the lurch and each succeeding version becomes more and more
> like the slimeware users would guard against. In fact the only
> difference is perspective. What users considered intrusive several
> years ago has now been spun into features by M$'s ever powerful
> marketing machine.
That`s a nice well reasoned arguement. Would that be rabid droll dangling
from your chin there sir?
In <5j34lbF3qlb3gU1@mid.individual.net>,
Simon Finnigan <SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
> Out of about 10 familes that I help with their PC`s, one has had a machine
> compromised. But then again they just plugged a machine running Windows
> 98SE straight onto the net - so they where using a very outdated OS. The
> same kind of situation that got a number of PC`s hosting Linux distro`s
> pulled offline recently actually, which I thought was quite interesting.
If they'd been running inherently insecure public services with outdated
software on Windows XP with no service packs or updates would you still
be blaming the OS?
> Everyone else got themselves a router and a firewall, and haven`t had any
> problems at all. I still check their machiens out now and again, but have
> never found anything on any of them.
>
> I suppose the problem is that you simply don`t know how to secure a
> computer.
Have you considered the possibility that some of your friends' PCs are
infected but you haven't spotted it? I think it's not just a
possibility, it's more likely than that your l33t anti-hAx0r skills have
kept them pristine. You're as good as admitting that you can't even spot
malware let alone secure against it.
I've seen 2 cases of Windows XP picking up infections despite being
behind routers, using Firefox and Thunderbird (in one case not being
used for email at all) instead of IE and OE, and running Avast, AdAware
and Spybot. I installed Linux on one of them and the owners are
perfectly happy with it and have never had to ask me for help with it -
admittedly much to my surprise.
"Tony Houghton" <h@realh.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnfcovgh.6tj.h@realh.co.uk...
> In <5j34lbF3qlb3gU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Simon Finnigan <SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>
>> Out of about 10 familes that I help with their PC`s, one has had a
>> machine
>> compromised. But then again they just plugged a machine running Windows
>> 98SE straight onto the net - so they where using a very outdated OS.
>> The
>> same kind of situation that got a number of PC`s hosting Linux distro`s
>> pulled offline recently actually, which I thought was quite interesting.
>
> If they'd been running inherently insecure public services with outdated
> software on Windows XP with no service packs or updates would you still
> be blaming the OS?
Yes, because Windows XP as first released is an old OS.
>> Everyone else got themselves a router and a firewall, and haven`t had any
>> problems at all. I still check their machiens out now and again, but
>> have
>> never found anything on any of them.
>>
>> I suppose the problem is that you simply don`t know how to secure a
>> computer.
>
> Have you considered the possibility that some of your friends' PCs are
> infected but you haven't spotted it? I think it's not just a
> possibility, it's more likely than that your l33t anti-hAx0r skills have
> kept them pristine. You're as good as admitting that you can't even spot
> malware let alone secure against it.
Can you please clarify that statement, where have I said that I can`t spot
malware? Machines that run as fast now as they did a year ago when I first
installed the OS and software on them, that have no network I/O other than
that expected from the running programs, that come up clean using any
malware spotting program I installed and ran on them - do these sound like
machines that are infested with malware?
> I've seen 2 cases of Windows XP picking up infections despite being
> behind routers, using Firefox and Thunderbird (in one case not being
> used for email at all) instead of IE and OE, and running Avast, AdAware
> and Spybot. I installed Linux on one of them and the owners are
> perfectly happy with it and have never had to ask me for help with it -
> admittedly much to my surprise.
Wow, good for you. I suppose you`ll be off to solve the problem of world
hunger next will you?
In <5j3ek4F3rtekcU1@mid.individual.net>,
Simon Finnigan <SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
> "Tony Houghton" <h@realh.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrnfcovgh.6tj.h@realh.co.uk...
>> In <5j34lbF3qlb3gU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> Simon Finnigan <SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>>
>>> Out of about 10 familes that I help with their PC`s, one has had a
>>> machine
>>> compromised. But then again they just plugged a machine running Windows
>>> 98SE straight onto the net - so they where using a very outdated OS.
>>> The
>>> same kind of situation that got a number of PC`s hosting Linux distro`s
>>> pulled offline recently actually, which I thought was quite interesting.
>>
>> If they'd been running inherently insecure public services with outdated
>> software on Windows XP with no service packs or updates would you still
>> be blaming the OS?
>
> Yes, because Windows XP as first released is an old OS.
And why does that not reflect on the current version of Windows, while
an old Linux being cracked due to negligent sysadmin makes good
propaganda against the current version of Linux?
>>> Everyone else got themselves a router and a firewall, and haven`t had any
>>> problems at all. I still check their machiens out now and again, but
>>> have
>>> never found anything on any of them.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> I suppose the problem is that you simply don`t know how to secure a
>>> computer.
>>
>> Have you considered the possibility that some of your friends' PCs are
>> infected but you haven't spotted it? I think it's not just a
>> possibility, it's more likely than that your l33t anti-hAx0r skills have
>> kept them pristine. You're as good as admitting that you can't even spot
>> malware let alone secure against it.
>
> Can you please clarify that statement, where have I said that I can`t spot
> malware?
In the line that I've highlighted. It's not believable that none of
these machines you check ever get infected.
> Machines that run as fast now as they did a year ago when I first
> installed the OS and software on them, that have no network I/O other than
> that expected from the running programs, that come up clean using any
> malware spotting program I installed and ran on them - do these sound like
> machines that are infested with malware?
You used the checker recommended in the big flashing banner on their
home page, didn't you. ;->
>> I've seen 2 cases of Windows XP picking up infections despite being
>> behind routers, using Firefox and Thunderbird (in one case not being
>> used for email at all) instead of IE and OE, and running Avast, AdAware
>> and Spybot. I installed Linux on one of them and the owners are
>> perfectly happy with it and have never had to ask me for help with it -
>> admittedly much to my surprise.
>
> Wow, good for you. I suppose you`ll be off to solve the problem of world
> hunger next will you?
I wonder why you're so annoyed by a spambot node being taken out of
commission...
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:03:44 +0100, "Simon Finnigan"
<SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
<snip>
>> The risk of being infected on a windows system is much
>> higher because windows is targeted. We could argue that
>> it's targeted because a hacker wants to do as much damage or
>> take control of as many bots as possible or a similar
>> argument that it only makes sense to focus on the masses
>> since the majority of home PCs run windows, but regardless
>> of the reason it is _really_ less secure as a result, and
>> Windows PCs will remain less secure even if the inbuilt
>> security measures become overwhelmingly better than on any
>> other OS.
>
>While I agree that a major reason Linux and other minor OS`s are not hacked
>as often because they simply aren`t worth spending the effort on, I`d say
>this only really affects the very lowest common denominator. The people who
>stick with out of date OS`s, don`t patch them and so on. Keeping up to date
>on patches etc on any OS removes the vast majority of potential for
>problems.
At any given moment there are multiple vulnerabilities to
windows (by windows I am also including IE and OE).
Securing a system against all the old vulnerabilities is
definitely a lot better than not doing so, if/when these
effect the actual uses of the system instead of a blind
faith that it'll do the trick.
> I wouldn`t agree that Windows is less secure than any other OS
>because of this attention - the sooner a problem is found and corrected, the
>fewer remaining issues there are in the OS.
.... except that some flaws are never corrected, and the
default windows installation was set up to update itself and
yet still remained a target, which was hit.
>I`d suggest that there are
>still a huge number of problems waiting to be found in Linux style OS`s, and
>if they ever manage to become popular, then I wouldn`t be surprised if the
>users find themselves in a situation where a huge number of exploits are
>found quickly, meaning that their "secure" choise of OS actually spends some
>significant period of time being less secure than the Windows alternative
>:-)
The risk is due to which OS is being targeted. You can
leave your car doors unlocked when you live on top of a
mountain and the odds of a break-in are still lower than a
locked car in some urban areas. The unlocked car is no less
secure in an absolute sense because the prevention is not
just whether it has locks but whether it is being targeted
at all by those who seek to break into cars.
In article <MPG.212e7021a6ad86ec98a5a7@news.individual.net> , Conor
wrote:
> > Your main
> > bugbear seems to be with networking, especially wifi.
>
> Wifi is very important for many people.
>
And extremely dangerous for most of the people who want to use
it (viz : anyone who handles any data of any sensitivity AND who isn't
a networking guru ; also it's completely unusable in any environments
that even intermittently *require* radio *silence*).
Regardless of the state of any OS's support for WiFi, relying on
WiFi support as an argument about the quality of a particular OS is no
better than relying on the state of the OS's support for encryption of
illegal pornography : it's not something that's appropriate for most
people.
--
Aidan Karley
Aberdeen, Scotland
Written at Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:16 +0100, but posted later.
Using VA 5.51 build 315 under Windows 2000 build 2195.
In article <VA.00001161.04c0e735@nospam.aaisp.org>, Daniel James wrote:
> I really must get a Mac ...
>
Got a Mac G4 laptop for the wife last week.
> I really must try out Windows in a VM under linux, and see whether that runs
> all the things I need -- of course, I'd still need to buy a Windows licence
> for that, so there'd be no financial saving.
>
I must try that sort of thing too. With the Mac, it's been a bit of a
curates egg. Installing Win2k into the emulator environment ("Virtual PC") took
over 24 hours, with one hang in the install process. Re-starting the emulator in
mid-install (described in the help as being "equivalent to pressing the reset
button", though I normally yank the power lead) allowed the Win2k install to
continue it's merry way. This is a familiar experience from installing to real
hardware - so the emulator might be *too* good!
Actually running the emulator ... not too bad. It runs, it saves and
restores, it seems as responsive on a G4 1.5GHz as on an Athlon1.3GHz. Only
running the wife's Anglo-Russian translating dictionary-thesaurus at the moment.
Single button mice and continually having to reach for the Ctrl key to
get a right-click is very uncomfortable; in general, Jobs+Woz need a cluebat
over single-button mice.
Time to dismantle the desktop which the Win2K disc came from.
--
Aidan Karley
Aberdeen, Scotland
Written at Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:28 +0100, but posted later.
Using VA 5.51 build 315 under Windows 2000 build 2195.
"Tony Houghton" <h@realh.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnfcp8kp.smb.h@realh.co.uk...
> In <5j3ek4F3rtekcU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Simon Finnigan <SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>
>> "Tony Houghton" <h@realh.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:slrnfcovgh.6tj.h@realh.co.uk...
>>> In <5j34lbF3qlb3gU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Simon Finnigan <SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Out of about 10 familes that I help with their PC`s, one has had a
>>>> machine
>>>> compromised. But then again they just plugged a machine running
>>>> Windows
>>>> 98SE straight onto the net - so they where using a very outdated OS.
>>>> The
>>>> same kind of situation that got a number of PC`s hosting Linux distro`s
>>>> pulled offline recently actually, which I thought was quite
>>>> interesting.
>>>
>>> If they'd been running inherently insecure public services with outdated
>>> software on Windows XP with no service packs or updates would you still
>>> be blaming the OS?
>>
>> Yes, because Windows XP as first released is an old OS.
>
> And why does that not reflect on the current version of Windows, while
> an old Linux being cracked due to negligent sysadmin makes good
> propaganda against the current version of Linux?
It just makes a nice change from the usual rabid rantings that Windows is
evil, insecure and Linux style OS`s are absolutely perfect.
>>>> Everyone else got themselves a router and a firewall, and haven`t had
>>>> any
>>>> problems at all. I still check their machiens out now and again, but
>>>> have
>>>> never found anything on any of them.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>> I suppose the problem is that you simply don`t know how to secure a
>>>> computer.
>>>
>>> Have you considered the possibility that some of your friends' PCs are
>>> infected but you haven't spotted it? I think it's not just a
>>> possibility, it's more likely than that your l33t anti-hAx0r skills have
>>> kept them pristine. You're as good as admitting that you can't even spot
>>> malware let alone secure against it.
>>
>> Can you please clarify that statement, where have I said that I can`t
>> spot
>> malware?
>
> In the line that I've highlighted. It's not believable that none of
> these machines you check ever get infected.
So don`t believe it then, that`s your choice. It`s also a fact that none of
the machines where infected.
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:33:44 +0100, "Simon Finnigan"
<SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
> It`s also a fact that none of
>the machines where infected.
LOL, no it's a fact that you didn't find any infection and
that there were no symptoms indicative of one still being
present. Lack of evidence <> proof, especially on this
topic. Remember, if all malware walked up and greeted you,
there'd be a lot less of it in the wild.
"Aidan Karley" <name1_name2@email.provider.invalid> wrote in message
news:VA.00001456.0ec78d01@email.provider.invalid.. .
>>
> And extremely dangerous for most of the people who want to use
> it (viz : anyone who handles any data of any sensitivity AND who isn't
> a networking guru ; also it's completely unusable in any environments
> that even intermittently *require* radio *silence*).
> Regardless of the state of any OS's support for WiFi, relying on
> WiFi support as an argument about the quality of a particular OS is no
> better than relying on the state of the OS's support for encryption of
> illegal pornography : it's not something that's appropriate for most
> people.
You only got electricity in Aberdeen recently or something?
In article <qvGdneawIfEGmkrbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com>, Synapse Syndrome
wrote:
> You only got electricity in Aberdeen recently or something?
>
Nope - I regularly (like - most times that I travel to work)
encounter situations where WiFi is either unusable, banned (for
non-computing reasons), or positively dangerous. And having seen the
competence of most people about configuring it to any useful degree of
security, I'm not confident of anyone's claims that they've got it
configured securely. At the very least, I'd want someone who I know is
capable of breaking into WiFi networks to tell me that he hasn't
succeeded in breaking into the network in consideration ; I'm not going
to trust a system administrator's word on it.
To elucidate
- in the steel-walled accommodation and offices at work, it's almost
unusable (radio waves don't propagate well through steel, and of course
the windows were mostly welded over to try to improve the
blast-proofing)
- whenever explosives are being handled, all radio transmitters are put
into lock-down (i.e. locked into a cupboard, switched off), including
mobile phones being used as address books, laptops with WiFi hardware,
un-registered walkie-talkies. Having seen the mess that a SWC gun made
of a rig deck in January, I'm not inclined to argue this in the
slightest.
- but the general problem is, wireless networks are possible routes for
remote access to data. While it is possible to configure them securely,
I've seen enough unsecured ones to not trust the capabilities of most
people to actually secure them properly. Take a random hours-worth of
people walking out of PC-World carrying wireless hardware : what
proportion of them do you think will actually securely set up their
system?
Do I think that wireless is a potentially useful technology?
Well, since I've had to run 200+m lengths of network cable around far
too many drilling rigs (onshore and offshore), and I've had to debug
the damned things at 03:00 with a fat fuckwit of a client shouting at
me in Arabic, then find the problem is a welder working on the other
side of a pipe racks ... of course I think that the IDEA of wireless
communications is a good one. The present IMPLEMENETATION - not up to
scratch. So I don't think that it's worth wasting my money on. Better -
by specifying WiFi-free hardware, I can put my company at a competitive
advantage by throwing the "radio silence" googly ("curve ball" in
American or Golf-ese, I think) at our competitors, so that they have to
shut down their equipment at the most inconvenient of times (or beg for
special exemptions. All may be fair in love and war, but in business
dirty tricks are compulsory.
There's nothing wrong with my appreciation of technology, I just
think that this particular one is better from a marketing point of view
than it is from a technical point of view.
--
Aidan Karley
Aberdeen, Scotland
Written at Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:59 +0100, but posted later.
Using VA 5.51 build 315 under Windows 2000 build 2195.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:qaa9d3lkma85o8bcpkok4sla2u4j3j7h77@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:33:44 +0100, "Simon Finnigan"
> <SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>
>> It`s also a fact that none of
>>the machines where infected.
>
>
> LOL, no it's a fact that you didn't find any infection and
> that there were no symptoms indicative of one still being
> present. Lack of evidence <> proof, especially on this
> topic. Remember, if all malware walked up and greeted you,
> there'd be a lot less of it in the wild.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like and dook and tastes like a duck, then
it`s a duck. If a machine looks like it has no malware on it, tests show no
malware on it, and analysing the network output of the machine shows no
malware on it, then there`s no malware on it. Anything else is paranoid
gibberish.
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:qaa9d3lkma85o8bcpkok4sla2u4j3j7h77@4ax.com.. .
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:33:44 +0100, "Simon Finnigan"
>> <SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>>
>>> It`s also a fact that none of
>>>the machines where infected.
>>
>>
>> LOL, no it's a fact that you didn't find any infection and
>> that there were no symptoms indicative of one still being
>> present. Lack of evidence <> proof, especially on this
>> topic. Remember, if all malware walked up and greeted you,
>> there'd be a lot less of it in the wild.
>
>If it walks like a duck, quacks like and dook and tastes like a duck, then
>it`s a duck. If a machine looks like it has no malware on it, tests show no
>malware on it, and analysing the network output of the machine shows no
>malware on it, then there`s no malware on it. Anything else is paranoid
>gibberish.
One of modern sophisticated malware's strength's is that it
seeks to be, and remain, hidden. Consider it a goal, that a
virus writer was seeking to avoid detection through common
means.
To think "I didn't find it and therefore it doesn't exist"
is just vanity, not proof.
You have pointed out another important test, that there is
no network traffic, but so it would also be with many
malwares, like the types attached to office documents or
BHOs, untill the associated application is ran, it will be
dormant.
If you would rather think it paranoid to be cautious, you
have already lost the security race, because it is all about
a certain level of paranoia, preparing for things before
they happen, seeing the potential for problems regardless of
whether you see an active exploit.
To back up a bit, let's consider what any intelligent
malware author would do. They would assess contemporary
meaures used to detect malware. They would deliberately
take note of what YOU would do, and design such that it
didn't reveal itself under those tests. What does this
really mean? All your scanners are useless if the malware
has not been detected and reported, and enough time has
passed for it to be added to databases of the scanners you
use. What it really means is, the scanners you use came as
a result of someone who actually WAS infected already. If
you think you are the exception from the rule, that only
someone else would be infected before a virus was widespread
enough to be added to a database for detection scanning, you
are not knowing anything, only playing odds that you are
luckier than most. If your system had low risk, it might
be enough, but nevertheless it is no proof, only a arrogant
assumption that you know what you have not found, must not
exist.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:ullnd3taos5sfcj1r56nk899qvlfcapr8s@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 09:32:28 +0100, "Simon Finnigan"
> <SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>
>>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>>news:qaa9d3lkma85o8bcpkok4sla2u4j3j7h77@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:33:44 +0100, "Simon Finnigan"
>>> <SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It`s also a fact that none of
>>>>the machines where infected.
>>>
>>>
>>> LOL, no it's a fact that you didn't find any infection and
>>> that there were no symptoms indicative of one still being
>>> present. Lack of evidence <> proof, especially on this
>>> topic. Remember, if all malware walked up and greeted you,
>>> there'd be a lot less of it in the wild.
>>
>>If it walks like a duck, quacks like and dook and tastes like a duck, then
>>it`s a duck. If a machine looks like it has no malware on it, tests show
>>no
>>malware on it, and analysing the network output of the machine shows no
>>malware on it, then there`s no malware on it. Anything else is paranoid
>>gibberish.
>
>
> One of modern sophisticated malware's strength's is that it
> seeks to be, and remain, hidden. Consider it a goal, that a
> virus writer was seeking to avoid detection through common
> means.
>
> To think "I didn't find it and therefore it doesn't exist"
> is just vanity, not proof.
>
> You have pointed out another important test, that there is
> no network traffic, but so it would also be with many
> malwares, like the types attached to office documents or
> BHOs, untill the associated application is ran, it will be
> dormant.
>
> If you would rather think it paranoid to be cautious, you
> have already lost the security race, because it is all about
> a certain level of paranoia, preparing for things before
> they happen, seeing the potential for problems regardless of
> whether you see an active exploit.
>
> To back up a bit, let's consider what any intelligent
> malware author would do. They would assess contemporary
> meaures used to detect malware. They would deliberately
> take note of what YOU would do, and design such that it
> didn't reveal itself under those tests. What does this
> really mean? All your scanners are useless if the malware
> has not been detected and reported, and enough time has
> passed for it to be added to databases of the scanners you
> use. What it really means is, the scanners you use came as
> a result of someone who actually WAS infected already. If
> you think you are the exception from the rule, that only
> someone else would be infected before a virus was widespread
> enough to be added to a database for detection scanning, you
> are not knowing anything, only playing odds that you are
> luckier than most. If your system had low risk, it might
> be enough, but nevertheless it is no proof, only a arrogant
> assumption that you know what you have not found, must not
> exist.
Ok, so nothing has shown up at all, and every scan performed on the machine
declares it free of any infection, exactly what is the malware on the
machine doing? It`s not sending anything out over the network at all, it`s
not modifying any files on the PC, so what is it doing?
In <5k25f7F1q1h0U1@mid.individual.net>,
Simon Finnigan <SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
> Ok, so nothing has shown up at all, and every scan performed on the machine
> declares it free of any infection, exactly what is the malware on the
> machine doing? It`s not sending anything out over the network at all, it`s
> not modifying any files on the PC, so what is it doing?
Logging your keystrokes and sending your credit card details out in a
secret code embedded in your usenet messages with backticks.
"Tony Houghton" <h@realh.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnfdnurv.5m9.h@realh.co.uk...
> In <5k25f7F1q1h0U1@mid.individual.net>,
> Simon Finnigan <SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>
>> Ok, so nothing has shown up at all, and every scan performed on the
>> machine
>> declares it free of any infection, exactly what is the malware on the
>> machine doing? It`s not sending anything out over the network at all,
>> it`s
>> not modifying any files on the PC, so what is it doing?
>
> Logging your keystrokes and sending your credit card details out in a
> secret code embedded in your usenet messages with backticks.
Please furnish us all with further details of the real-world trojan(s) that
operate in such a manner. Please ensure that said programs are not detected
by a malware dectortor program and that it isn`t modifying any files on the
PC before posting it as a valid example to backup your arguement.
>Ok, so nothing has shown up at all, and every scan performed on the machine
>declares it free of any infection, exactly what is the malware on the
>machine doing? It`s not sending anything out over the network at all, it`s
>not modifying any files on the PC, so what is it doing?
If you are claiming you can do an activity like surfing the
web and keep track of where all the packets go when visiting
many modern websites, I think that a bluff. Likewise with
all the incessant writing windows and other applications
continually do. You are certainly detecting some file
writing and network traffic in some uses, so the remaining
question is whether there was some stealth to the extent
that it wasn't caught. How about a virus that is logging
and writes out a file only when the machine is shut down for
example?
Remember that *until* others realize they have malware, they
too thought they had a handle on their system, had not
detected traffic or files and generally won't until certain
types of malware meant only as a nuisance deliver their
payload in an overly obvious way like changing your browser
homepage.
On the other hand, it would be a bit paranoid to assume
there is something there which is not detected, just as it
would be premature to assume nothing is there if nothing is
detected, _when_ there was reason to believe the system had
been subject to an infestation previously. I've never
claimed we could walk up to any random windows machine and
assume it infected without some reason to wonder about it.
>"Tony Houghton" <h@realh.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:slrnfdnurv.5m9.h@realh.co.uk...
>> In <5k25f7F1q1h0U1@mid.individual.net>,
>> Simon Finnigan <SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, so nothing has shown up at all, and every scan performed on the
>>> machine
>>> declares it free of any infection, exactly what is the malware on the
>>> machine doing? It`s not sending anything out over the network at all,
>>> it`s
>>> not modifying any files on the PC, so what is it doing?
>>
>> Logging your keystrokes and sending your credit card details out in a
>> secret code embedded in your usenet messages with backticks.
>
>Please furnish us all with further details of the real-world trojan(s) that
>operate in such a manner. Please ensure that said programs are not detected
>by a malware dectortor program and that it isn`t modifying any files on the
>PC before posting it as a valid example to backup your arguement.
Please furnish us with details on how you realistically
expect to catch it even if it didn't.
You don't really think "a malware detection program" catches
100% of them do you? In fact, it catches NONE of them until
they've been circulating around enough for someone savvy to
have caught one, submitted it, and it is added to the
malware scanner data, then distributed to the end users.
It's a game of catch-up. There are plenty of times I've
had to scan someone's system and there were files left
undetected with current malware scanners, it was
particularly useful to note the directories and dates of the
files to find correspondant other malware files.
As for modifying files, don't you think windows and apps do
that all the time? How about if it isn't written to write
out a file during the interval in which you're watching for
it? Don't you think any malware author looking to keep the
activity of the program hidden would make the slightest
effort to cause stealthy operation, or did you think there's
always going to be a popup window advertising "ha ha I ownz
u" along with a flurry of continual HDD activity?
Further, are you running these packet filtering and HDD
write detection programs constantly like RIGHT NOW? If not
always running them and always watching them, what you're
claiming will be effective is a step ineffective due to not
continually occurring. If you're telling us you are always
watching this, it seems you are the more paranoid among us
unless you have a real reason to suspect you will be
infected, that past history has shown it likely rather than
the other way around.
> Ok, so nothing has shown up at all, and every scan performed on the machine
> declares it free of any infection, exactly what is the malware on the
> machine doing? It`s not sending anything out over the network at all, it`s
> not modifying any files on the PC, so what is it doing?
Maybe waiting for a specific date to drop the payload.
--
People say I'm violent.
Tell 'em it aint true or I'll kick yer teeth in!
In article news:<5k25f7F1q1h0U1@mid.individual.net>, Simon Finnigan wrote:
> Ok, so nothing has shown up at all, and every scan performed on the
> machine declares it free of any infection, exactly what is the malware
> on the machine doing? It`s not sending anything out over the network at
> all, it`s not modifying any files on the PC, so what is it doing?
Hiding ... waiting ... biding its time ... maybe collecting your data as you
type ready to send it all over the network when it thinks it has struck gold
...
Of course, if you've done your malware scanning reasonably sensibly and
diligently it is more likely that there is no malware on your system ... but
never say "never" ...
Re: Repair Windows XP 
Linear Mode
