Rolling Stone Article Part #2-2
Raid Slam
says they should find it scary. Still, he contends that virus writers
and their creations are only a symptom; the problem itself is the
"overall development mentality" - namely, the low priority given to
security issues by software manufacturers like Microsoft - that allows
them to flourish. As long as there are operating systems and software
programs with vulnerabilities that can be exploited, virus writers are
going to exploit them - sometimes for no better reason than the fact
that they can.
It's five in the morning, and lines of text are still marching across
the screen. "Humans are almost forced to open Pandora's box at times,"
Opic writes. A few seconds later, a server message appears in the chat
window: "Opic has set the topic on channel #codebreakers to 'Curiosity
Killed the cat.'"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article originally appeared in the Sept 16th, 1999 issue of Rolling
Stone magazine. It has been transcribed into text file format, for
widespread distribution. This article was transcribed in it's entirety:
Nothing was added, changed, or removed. This article is transcribed
and released for distribution without permission nor knowledge of
Rolling Stone magazine.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Frederic
> Asked if he can understand why most people find that idea scary, Opic
> says they should find it scary. Still, he contends that virus writers
> and their creations are only a symptom; the problem itself is the
> "overall development mentality" - namely, the low priority given to
> security issues by software manufacturers like Microsoft - that allows
> them to flourish. As long as there are operating systems and software
> programs with vulnerabilities that can be exploited, virus writers are
> going to exploit them - sometimes for no better reason than the fact
> that they can.
Blah blah. Virus writers are the cause, not the symptom. Nobody forces them to
exploit security holes; it's sad enough that security issues are now of
paramount importance when developing software. What a lame attempt to justify
virus writing, really pathetic.
If all existing security holes were mended - would virus writers stop writing
and releasing viruses? Certainly not. They would come up with another idiotic
attempt to warrant their doing - maybe research in the field of artifical life.
Omnivore
Frederic wrote in message <3800D940...@altavista.net>...
As near as I can tell it is not going to make virus writers go away
whether one cusses or berates or tries to reason.
I get the impression that some like to expose security holes and some
would just take malicious advantage and various individuals have various
motives. Both sides lose me in arguing semantics of cause and symptom.
Has many virus writers ever been argued out of their points of view?
Nick FitzGerald
> Blah blah. Virus writers are the cause, not the symptom. Nobody forces
them to
So very true.
> exploit security holes; it's sad enough that security issues are now of
Viruses do not exploit security holes. Anyone who thinks they
do really does not understand the issues. Viruses are a feature
of general purpose computers, in the same sense that Email
programs and newsreaders are. They are, however, *optional*
features -- ones that never *need* exist.
"Security exploits" expose poor design, implementation flaws or
both. You can *fix* those by redesign and/or patching. You can
(theoretically) *prevent* them by very careful design from the
outset.
The only way you can prevent the possibility of computer viruses
is by eliminating general purpose computers. If you do not
understand this, try to make sense of what Fred Cohen wrote all
those years ago.
The foregoing all boils down to a couple of very simple truths.
Security exploits will be with us forever because of the "human
condition" (lack of perfection -- and, no, that's not a religious
thing, just reality). They are "unavoidable".
Whether any viruses ever exist is a moral and ethical issue.
They will only exist as long as there are people with suitably
low ethical standards allowed access to general purpose
computers. (And don't give me any crap about about "value
neutral pure research" -- if you believe in that you are part
of the problem.)
> paramount importance when developing software. What a lame attempt to
justify
> virus writing, really pathetic.
Hey -- "pathetic" and "lame" are what they are best at. Do
you really wish they'd stop excelling at the only things they
do well?
> If all existing security holes were mended - would virus writers stop
writing
> and releasing viruses? Certainly not. ...
Of course not, as virus writing is not inherently related
to the existence of security holes. See above...
> ... They would come up with another idiotic
> attempt to warrant their doing - maybe research in the field of artifical
life.
*And* they would do this too...
The solution is a social (ultimately educational?) one. If
we are to live well in a world ever more dependent on widely
available computerized systems, we have to imbue the rising
generations with the "right" ethical code for living in that
world. If we don't, we may end up in even worse trouble
than we have now.
--
Nick FitzGerald
Nick FitzGerald
> >>>>Hey -- "pathetic" and "lame" are what they are best at. Do
> you really wish they'd stop excelling at the only things they
> do well?<<<<<
>
> I really had a higer opinion of you Nick than this post suggests..
I wasn't aware you were new here...
> "The only things they do well"
OK -- "...within the realm of viral software". The reason
is easy -- on balance, there is no good use for viral
software technology once the costs of distribution control
and revision tracking are added, which any sane commercial
(even shareware) software producer would have to consider.
As for "justifying" themselves, all we ever hear are the
same-old, lame-old excuses that the previous generation of
virus writers learnt from the previous generation, learnt
from the previous... Hang around here for more than a
couple of years (which *very few* virus writers/VX people
do under the same guise), and you will be astonished how
lame the successors of the current roster sound when
repeating the current "justifications" of their miserable
existences.
These people (and elements of the media who lionize them)
think they are creative and new and challenging. I have
some bad news for you -- I've not heard a new argument
from these "creative geniuses" in longer than you have
probably been out of pre-school.
Flawed and pathetic is all we ever hear from "across the
tracks". That spells lame to me.
> Ignorance has never really been a valid excuse for anything.If at any
time
> you wish to compare your list of achievements outside of this electronic
> discussion world..please feel free to call me.As a general point of
interest
Sure -- give me your number.
> as I have stated at other times on this NG...many of you will be using
> software we have written in our jobs outside ..does that software have
less
> value because you do/dont know it was written by one of us??I know many
of
> the Virus writers well as friends and fellows and please rest assured
that
> their abilities would leave many PC users and professionals in the
> dark.Please at least endevour to treat us as individuals and NOT a a
generic
I'll turn your question around on you.
Is your value to your employers any gretaer or lessser
because you are so ashamed of your "secret life" that you
have not told them you are virus writers?
And if you *have* told, them your employers must be real
proud of the fact because of all the advertsing we see
proclaiming the merits of their products having virus
writers on the development team!
Wow -- how did I *miss* this in the past...
Admit it -- you pursue a widely undesirable pasttime for
no significant personal *or* professional benefit and you
are to ashamed to publicly connect yourself to your
employer and its product(s).
And the reason for this deep shame you carry? You have no
adequate defense against the people who despise what you
do and who despise that on strong ethical grounds.
> bunch of monsters..By his own admission Doren is a virus writer!!Does
that
> mean he is "Lame"??
No -- Doren was lame before he wrote, or admitted to
writing, a virus.
> I really had expected better of you of all people Nick!!
I notice you chose not to debate the *substantive* claims
in my post. For what reason? Because my obvious disgust
of your worthless "hobby" upset you, so you set about
attacking me? The other readers see through such miserable
facades very easily Tam.
Come on -- if there is any real value in what you do,
debate the *issues*! I know you can't, but we might have
some fun at your expense while you try...
--
Nick FitzGerald
Richard Lupu
<soho20N...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
<Snip-From article posted by Raid from Rolling Stone>
>Asked if he can understand why most people find that idea scary, Opic
>says they should find it scary. Still, he contends that virus writers
>and their creations are only a symptom; the problem itself is the
>"overall development mentality" - namely, the low priority given to
>security issues by software manufacturers like Microsoft - that allows
>them to flourish. As long as there are operating systems and software
>programs with vulnerabilities that can be exploited, virus writers are
>going to exploit them - sometimes for no better reason than the fact
>that they can.
</Snip>
I do not understand how they could be symptoms.
Being a symptom denotes that actions are involuntary and
a direct result of insecure programming.
The viruses still have to be written and a conscious decision from a
sentient being must make that decision. If the virus wrote itself with
out any human intervention, then it would be a symptom.
As long -
As long as people leave their doors unlocked, someone will break in.
As long as someone leaves a computer logged on, someone will steal
data.
As long as people leave wallets and purses unattended, they will be
taken.
Opic is right, there is always someone to do the wrong thing. Maybe
when people stop asking themselves if they can do it but rather should
they do it some of this may stop.
I would never claim any superiority over VXers so I do not want my
post to come off that way. I am sure most have better computer skills
than I do, more experience and maybe even more intelligent. I guess I
just do not understand the mentality of allowing Viruses to escape
into the wild, maybe someone would like to explain it for me. I am
not so naive to believe that there are not those who do it solely
for malicious purposes.
This is not meant to attack personal character and if offense is
taken I apologize. I respect anyone who can argue their side
intelligently and coherently.
Maybe nobility is not defined by actions but rather by intentions.
Rich
Omnivore
Nick FitzGerald wrote in message <01bf1377$90e620e0$87f0a7cb@mobilenick>...
>Tam <P...@ultimatechaos.org> wrote:
>
snip
>
>I notice you chose not to debate the *substantive* claims
>in my post. For what reason? Because my obvious disgust
>of your worthless "hobby" upset you, so you set about
>attacking me? The other readers see through such miserable
>facades very easily Tam.
>
>Come on -- if there is any real value in what you do,
>debate the *issues*! I know you can't, but we might have
>some fun at your expense while you try...
On the contrary. I do not agree with some of something the other fellow
posted awhile back. But I see your views as rather absolutist and bigoted.
Some virus writers seem willing to post here and there seems some chance
of learning this or that. Is vilifying and name calling going to serve any
constructive purpose then if you insult someone enough to go away?
>
>
>--
>Nick FitzGerald
PaX
you really wish they'd stop excelling at the only things they
do well?<<<<<
I really had a higer opinion of you Nick than this post suggests..
"The only things they do well"
Ignorance has never really been a valid excuse for anything.If at any time
you wish to compare your list of achievements outside of this electronic
discussion world..please feel free to call me.As a general point of interest
as I have stated at other times on this NG...many of you will be using
software we have written in our jobs outside ..does that software have less
value because you do/dont know it was written by one of us??I know many of
the Virus writers well as friends and fellows and please rest assured that
their abilities would leave many PC users and professionals in the
dark.Please at least endevour to treat us as individuals and NOT a a generic
bunch of monsters..By his own admission Doren is a virus writer!!Does that
mean he is "Lame"??
I really had expected better of you of all people Nick!!
Regards Dalton aka PaX
Nick FitzGerald
> >Come on -- if there is any real value in what you do,
> >debate the *issues*! I know you can't, but we might have
> >some fun at your expense while you try...
>
> On the contrary. I do not agree with some of something the other
fellow
> posted awhile back. But I see your views as rather absolutist and
bigoted.
You see nothing then. *If* you've been around long enough
to have an informed opinion of my views, you would know
that each of the very few times any real debate has occurred,
the gutter slime loses. Why do you think they remain as
gutter slime? Because they are incapable of evolving or
"improving".
> Some virus writers seem willing to post here and there seems some
chance
> of learning this or that. Is vilifying and name calling going to serve
any
> constructive purpose then if you insult someone enough to go away?
Sure -- you can learn the odd snippet of how some or other
of unwanted programs works, but that is inadequate
justification for their existence, for had they not written
the virus in the first place we would have no need of
understanding it.
If you stick around long enough, you will see inadequate
teenagers grow a little, following the same lines as the
previous "generation" and then disappearing. A few of
them actually have the integrity to come back later and
say "I used to be PukeGobbler -- what I twat I was
then", but most are too ashamed of what they were.
I'm tired of the non-debates that lead to non-development.
As a strategy, making a few of them realize how
chronically lame they are *before* they write/release
anything that gets a chance to do any real damage seems
like something that might be worth a try, as the last
decade of trying to understand them has been a terrible
failure in terms of reducing the problem.
PaX
post to come off that way. I am sure most have better computer skills
than I do, more experience and maybe even more intelligent. I guess I
just do not understand the mentality of allowing Viruses to escape
into the wild, maybe someone would like to explain it for me. I am
not so naive to believe that there are not those who do it solely
for malicious purposes.<<<
Correct Rich most of us are just programmers,who have an interest in a very
unusual subject.There are some that like to see their creations spread there
are some that don't of all the other authors I know I have yet to come
across one that does spread their creations just for causing random
destruction.I understand that the actions of some of my fellows can be a
little hard to understand most of the time but all any of us ever ask is to
be treated as individuals not as a generic bunch.Your point about "allowing
viruses to escape into the wild" well I'll probably get flamed for it but I
would venture to suggest that this rarely happens and most large scale
infections are deliberate.Of course there are the "Accidental/Negligent"
happenings that most of us will have seen over the years ,for example Robs
problems with the original I worm.
>>>>This is not meant to attack personal character and if offense is
taken I apologize. I respect anyone who can argue their side
intelligently and coherently. <<<<
It's no problem you have the a same rights as we do ,an honest opinion will
always be respected.=]
>>>Maybe nobility is not defined by actions but rather by intentions.<<<<
I agree ...but there are times when Intentions are not enough..
A final point..as virus writers our handles and membership will be ever
changing but be assured we will always be here.Wether that is good or bad is
up to you to decide..=]
Best Wishes PaX
Randy Abrams
El Gato <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:199910110615...@nym.alias.net...
> Nick FitzGerald:
>
<snip>
> While i have nothing to say about your messages helping
> people or talking about AV industry, because they use a
> normal language, it's obvious that whenever you talk
> to or about virus writers, you just loose total control
> of yourself,
Actually Spanska, you are wrong there. I have been around Nick when he spoke
like thi s of virus writers. I assure you he was in total control and very
deliberate in his wording.
> sometimes flirting with the limits of the
> law (incitation to suicide, threats...), and of course
> i'm not talking about the limits of good taste.
For good reason, I'm sure :)
<snip>
> Last days i've check a bit in Dejanews the messages you
> posted last months. They reminded me something. After a
> while, i remembered i did the same kind of research about
> white supremacists, racists or members of KKK. They use
> exactly the same dialectics as yours, against black or
> jew people, when you use it against virus writers. We
> could literally cut and replace these messages of hate.
Except for the huge section of analogy you conveniently leave missing when
you deliberately fail to point out that the Nick's rants against virus
writers are for what they have chosen to do, rather than for them having
been born how they are. A shakey analogy Spanska. Surely you can do better
than this.
>
> Nick, frankly, when you talk to virus coders, you no more
> look like a antivirus specialist. You look like a fascist.
> And fascists are considered more dangerous to society than
> virus writers.
>
Let's see, Nick used some strong words to describe people's whose actions
are objectionable. You deliberately violate peoples privacy. You lose, you
are obviously more dangerous to society than Nick.
Regards,
Randy
--
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of the Microsoft Corporation.
PaX
>>>Each time some serious debate occures here between
Vx and AV, you do your best efforts to end it by
compulsively insulting one side.<<<
>>El Gato.<<<
Well I have to say Gato has a very Valid point...Nick if you perhaps tried
to talk to one of us in place of just spewing forth hatred then maybe it
would give more insight into the whys and hows of what we do.I'm not asking
anybody to like what we do but just to at least listen to our points before
levelling the guns.Spanska has a very valid point about Generic
hatred..Because we admit to being virus writers we must be pond slime who
should be destroyed??That is a little akin to the genocide of 50 years
ago.What are your opinions of say Storm Bringer???he is former Phalcon Skism
but now works with the AV industry by your definition he is evil and
worthless??
Perhaps you could explain where the cut off point is?where one of us becomes
human again??
Nick I don't agree with your opinions but I don't hate you for having
them..maybe you could show us the same consideration..
Best Wishes PaX
Omnivore
PaX wrote in message <7ttnmc$m2k$1...@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net>...
If someone gets shot let us go hang the nearest gun owner.
If someone gets hung let us go drown the nearest person with a rope.
Omnivore
Paul Schmehl wrote in message <7tto4t$e43$1...@news.utdallas.edu>...
>On 11 Oct 1999 06:15:41 -0000, El Gato
><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> felt it essential to add to the
>discussion:
>
>[snip]
>>
>>Last days i've check a bit in Dejanews the messages you
>>posted last months. They reminded me something. After a
>>while, i remembered i did the same kind of research about
>>white supremacists, racists or members of KKK. They use
>>exactly the same dialectics as yours, against black or
>>jew people, when you use it against virus writers. We
>>could literally cut and replace these messages of hate.
>
>attempts to paint all protesters of immoral or reprehensible behavior
>as "haters" whose reason is clouded by their hate.
>
>It may sell on CNN and ABC, but it doesn't even make a thud when it
>falls to the floor here.
>
>Try something new for a change.
>>
>>Nick, frankly, when you talk to virus coders, you no more
>>look like a antivirus specialist. You look like a fascist.
>>And fascists are considered more dangerous to society than
>>virus writers.
>
>do whatever I want, and you have no right to tell me what to do.
>After all, I'm free. And if my actions harm you, well.....caveat
>emptor......luser...
>
>This tired, empty rhetoric convinces no one. At least no one with
>more than two brain cells connected together. Perhaps that's why the
>anti-social and amoral midgits are the first to trot it out like the
>flag of their cause?
>
Interesting rant.
I had an interest and fascination with plant alkaloids.
Some of them are toxic and some are used for medications and some are
controlled substances for sake of being addictive or enjoyable to some
folks.
All I wanted to do what to extract and purify some crystals from some
various alkaloid plants.
Then a neighbor got busted for drugs and made a deal. It seems one thing
and another led to my hobby being similar to the way methamphetamine is
purified after it is processed so I was busted for manufacturing
methamphetamine even though I did no really know how to do that at the time.
Some folks that believed that I was not manufacturing crank expressed
view that I deserved the three years in prison for sake of meddling with
toxic substances.
It seems easy enough for folks to condemn what they do not understand.
The motives of one who may have an unusual hobby is certainly suspect. But I
would suppose that if some human didn't pursue interesting and dangerous
things we would be still eating our food raw and would not have great
problem with depleting ozone layer.
Omnivore
Richard Lupu wrote in message <3802d1e7...@news.skypoint.com>...
>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:33:19 +0100, "PaX" <P...@ultimatechaos.org>
>wrote:
snip
I don't know about the motives of this and that writer of virus.
I make jewelry and used to do a lot of things with silver. I would
dissolve a lot of scrap in nitric acid to treat with chlorine to extract
pure silver. Sometimes, for a lark, I would bubble acetylene through the
silver nitrate and create and explosive. The stuff would make a damned fine
detonator even better than the commercial detonators that one can purchase.
Does my meddling about put me on a level with some Oklahoma or Unabomber
bomber?
Hell, I have seen some pending legislation that may make just what I
have said in this post a federal crime.
Well, I would just say that if you ever bubble any acetylene through
silver nitrate you ought be damned careful with the dry precipitate. -
I am not going to elaborate how to make a detonator out of it.
Richard Lupu
>Nick FitzGerald:
>
>>*If* you've been around long enough
>>to have an informed opinion of my views
>
>Your views are more than often discredited by
>your language, as everybody noticed.
I noticed no such thing. Albiet Nick chooses stronger words
than I might, I hardly see how his choice of vernacular
discounts any of his ideology. If you feel you must chastise
someone please speak with your own words and not
"everyones".
>>each of the very few times any real debate has occurred,
>>the gutter slime loses
>
>Each time some serious debate occures here between
>Vx and AV, you do your best efforts to end it by
>compulsively insulting one side.
Again, I am afraid I do not see this. I have seen plenty
of requests for debate go unanswered that were gentile
and honest. More often than not the only posts I see
representatives from the Vx community answer are those
that they find insulting. This in of itself is intriguing. I am
genuinely surprised when a Vxer takes offense at being
despised. It runs along the same line as a burgler being
surprised that most homeowners hate them. Please make
no mistake, although I cannot speak for the whole world, I
think I can safely say Vxers are generally hated, by most,
as a group.
>>Because they are incapable of evolving or
>>"improving".
>
>This is a definition of yourself? Look in the mirror,
>Nick.
>
>While i have nothing to say about your messages helping
>people or talking about AV industry, because they use a
>normal language, it's obvious that whenever you talk
>to or about virus writers, you just loose total control
>of yourself, sometimes flirting with the limits of the
>law (incitation to suicide, threats...), and of course
>i'm not talking about the limits of good taste.
>
>This has a name in psychiatry. It's called schizophrenia.
>
I think a refresher course in abnormal psychology would
do you well. Lets assume for the sake of argument
that you are correct, which I think you are not, and
the above paragraph describes Nick. This would fall
more in the catagory of a sociopath rather than that
of a basic undefined schizoid persona.
>Last days i've check a bit in Dejanews the messages you
>posted last months. They reminded me something. After a
>while, i remembered i did the same kind of research about
>white supremacists, racists or members of KKK. They use
>exactly the same dialectics as yours, against black or
>jew people, when you use it against virus writers. We
>could literally cut and replace these messages of hate.
I too have been reading this newsgroup for a long time but
I fail to draw the same conclusions. Not only that but I take great
offense at your inane and juvinile attempt to discredit someone
based on erroneous conclusions. Please do not cheapen
the sacrafices made by good people in the fight against
racism to further your twisted and maladjusted tendencies.
>Nick, frankly, when you talk to virus coders, you no more
>look like a antivirus specialist. You look like a fascist.
>And fascists are considered more dangerous to society than
>virus writers.
Apples to oranges, this is a reach of reason that is beyond
belief. Typical criminaly minded tactics. Are you really
surprised there are those who hate you? Why do you
think this hate is unjustified? Please do not equate yourself
to the Innocent Jews and black individuals that were
persecuted wrongly. If you are presecuted it is brought
by your own actions. Do us all a favor. If you believe
that what you are doing when you create a virus is
all right then argue the point without insults. Ignore those
who insult you and state the facts and arguments that
condone malicous code in an articulate and
professional manner. But by all means please do not
equate your suffering with those who have suffered
true bigotry and racism. If you cannot do that then please
annoy us with your creations and not your inane words.
Vxers choose their path they are not born into it. If you choose
to create problems for the rest of the world please also choose
to accept the consequences that go along with it. If you want to
be antiestablishment in nature please stand up and acknowledge
it and not feign surprise when the establishment hates you. It really
does do a great disservice to your group.
Rich
Richard Lupu
wrote:
>>>>>I would never claim any superiority over VXers so I do not want my
>post to come off that way. I am sure most have better computer skills
>than I do, more experience and maybe even more intelligent. I guess I
>just do not understand the mentality of allowing Viruses to escape
>into the wild, maybe someone would like to explain it for me. I am
>not so naive to believe that there are not those who do it solely
>for malicious purposes.<<<
>
>Correct Rich most of us are just programmers,who have an interest in a very
>unusual subject.There are some that like to see their creations spread there
>are some that don't of all the other authors I know I have yet to come
>across one that does spread their creations just for causing random
>destruction.I understand that the actions of some of my fellows can be a
>little hard to understand most of the time but all any of us ever ask is to
>be treated as individuals not as a generic bunch.Your point about "allowing
>viruses to escape into the wild" well I'll probably get flamed for it but I
>would venture to suggest that this rarely happens and most large scale
>infections are deliberate.Of course there are the "Accidental/Negligent"
>happenings that most of us will have seen over the years ,for example Robs
>problems with the original I worm.
>
Thank you PaX for the response. I agree, I am sure I will generate
some flames in my direction as I am basically anti-Vx. That is
interesting though, I would not have guessed that so many are
released on purpose. I seem to recall that most posts I have seen
over the years are justified by the, "I am only doing it on my
machine for fun" mentality. It is hard to treat them as an individual
since the overall nature seems shrouded in secrecy and for
good reason. I do respect the fact that you responded PaX, and I
do not mean to imply that everything a Vxer does is evil. I do think
that it is a choice a Vxer has made and this does not absolve
responsibility. I think it is safe to say what may be considered a
hobby by some is considered a major crime by others. This will
hardly endear you to the general community. I myself have no
difficulty debating with you or anyone as an individual. So to those
who wish to flame me go ahead but I respond better to clear
arguments.
>>>>>This is not meant to attack personal character and if offense is
>taken I apologize. I respect anyone who can argue their side
>intelligently and coherently. <<<<
>
>It's no problem you have the a same rights as we do ,an honest opinion will
>always be respected.=]
>
>>>>Maybe nobility is not defined by actions but rather by intentions.<<<<
>
>I agree ...but there are times when Intentions are not enough..
I am not sure I understand. This statement implies that there is
a purpose to the intentions other than simply causing problems ;-)
>
>A final point..as virus writers our handles and membership will be ever
>changing but be assured we will always be here.Wether that is good or bad is
>up to you to decide..=]
>
That is understandable. Again, I am not attacking you as a person.
I believe your actions when pertaining to creating and then releasing
viruses to be bad. A person acting bad is not the same as a bad
person.
>Best Wishes PaX
>
And to you and yours,
Rich
PaX
changed.<<<
Paul,
Of course you have documented evidence that one of my creations has
impinged on anothers rights??Or maybe even that it has made the wild list??
I thought not...as I have always said I don't want people to agree or
disagree with me just to respect the fact that i'm different...
Best wishes PaX
Randy Abrams
El Gato <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:1999101212445...@nym.alias.net...
<snip>
> Note that, as an example, Nick is partially responsible for
> one virus (ColdApe if i remember) that was "dedicated" to
> him. By constantly insulting coders, he give them the good
> motivation to continue their hobby. He feeds them, exactly
> like people hating trolls but responding to their messages
> (we had a good example in this group two weeks ago).
Spanska, Are you going to argue the rape victim is responsible, the racial
victim is responsible, the burglary victim is responsible? I can't believe
the crap you just spouted. This is the stupidest paragraph I've ever seen
you write. Nick is not partially responsible for ColdApe, the virus writer
is entirely responsible for it. Let us know when you've sobered up.
> So Nick, a supposed AV person, is doing all he can do to
> motivate virus coders. I try to think about this
> basical contradiction. Two hypothesis: Nick has a
> schizoid behavior (he's not the same, loosing control
> when talking about virus coders), or even more weird, this
> is done on purpose, a sort of strategy to give Vx reasons
> to code new viruses.
I thought sharing the source code was the best you could do to motivate
virus writers. What was the vintage of whatever you ingested? Perhaps you
should wait until sobriety is within conceptual grasp before you continue to
hypothesize.
> Just a personal point of view to terminate. I tried to talk
> honestly to people in this group for more than three years,
> avoiding as i could the name calling stupid fights. I can
> say that the persons with most important impact on me were
> the ones who discussed quietly and seriously: Kurt, Bruce,
> Pierre of course, sometimes Graham, even George, some other.
> If you want coders to think about their hobby and the
> implications of what they do, talk to them. Do not insult
> them.
You make it very difficult when you spew crap about the victim being the
perpetrator and how Vx are not responsible for their actions, they are the
mere puppets of those who manipulate their acts through the use of the iron
insult. It is true comedy you write when you talk about how easy it is to
make Nick lose control, then tell how no Vx'er can control his/her actions
in the face of an insult.
Larry Bridwell
Nick FitzGerald <ni...@virus-l.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:01bf1371$be7da240$87f0a7cb@mobilenick...
> Frederic <f...@altavista.net> wrote:
>
[cut good stuff]
> The only way you can prevent the possibility of computer viruses
> is by eliminating general purpose computers. If you do not
> understand this, try to make sense of what Fred Cohen wrote all
> those years ago.
>
> The foregoing all boils down to a couple of very simple truths.
>
> Security exploits will be with us forever because of the "human
> condition" (lack of perfection -- and, no, that's not a religious
> thing, just reality). They are "unavoidable".
>
> Whether any viruses ever exist is a moral and ethical issue.
> They will only exist as long as there are people with suitably
> low ethical standards allowed access to general purpose
> computers. (And don't give me any crap about about "value
> neutral pure research" -- if you believe in that you are part
> of the problem.)
>
I have to agree with Nick here. I am often reminded of the quote of Jeff
Goldblum's character in Jurassic Park that went something like this:
The question is not, "CAN we do it?" but rather "SHOULD we do it?"
Okay so it isn't an exact quote (wasn't much of a JP fan), but I do believe
it is the ultimate question in not only virus writing, but in all behavior
questions.
Oh yes, as far as Nick's strong opinions and words, while it may not be my
preferred method of debate, I have not been attacked as he by virus writers,
nor do I have his expertise and history with the virus writers.
Oh BTW, to whomever it was that compared Nick to a member of a hate group,
generally it is members of hate groups who wear the hoods, use assumed
names, and attempt to hide their tracks and identities. Nick does none of
these. This is not a general attack at anyone, just a reminder tohat we
need to keep our perspectives open when we make allegations.
Larry
--
Larry Bridwell
Technology Program Manager, ICSA Labs.
"...but then, these are my thoughts and ICSA Labs just may not agree,
so give 'em a break!"
PaX
in the face of an insult.<<<<<
*cough* *cough* RANDY!!!!!
=]
PaX
Omnivore
Paul Schmehl wrote in message
>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:47:42 -0700, "Omnivore"
><sun...@SPAMOFFpacbell.net>, eager to engage in discussion said:
>
>[snip]
>>
>> If someone gets shot let us go hang the nearest gun owner.
>> If someone gets hung let us go drown the nearest person with a rope.
>>
>virus writer to death?
>
>Sounds reasonable to me.
>
Hell, anyone that does any programming might be suspect.
Omnivore
Paul Schmehl wrote in message ...
>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:59:26 -0700, "Omnivore"
><sun...@SPAMOFFpacbell.net>, eager to engage in discussion said:
>
>[snip]
>>
>> I had an interest and fascination with plant alkaloids.
>> Some of them are toxic and some are used for medications and some are
>>controlled substances for sake of being addictive or enjoyable to some
>>folks.
>> All I wanted to do what to extract and purify some crystals from some
>>various alkaloid plants.
>> Then a neighbor got busted for drugs and made a deal. It seems one
thing
>>and another led to my hobby being similar to the way methamphetamine is
>>purified after it is processed so I was busted for manufacturing
>>methamphetamine even though I did no really know how to do that at the
time.
>> Some folks that believed that I was not manufacturing crank expressed
>>view that I deserved the three years in prison for sake of meddling with
>>toxic substances.
>> It seems easy enough for folks to condemn what they do not understand.
>>The motives of one who may have an unusual hobby is certainly suspect. But
I
>>would suppose that if some human didn't pursue interesting and dangerous
>>things we would be still eating our food raw and would not have great
>>problem with depleting ozone layer.
>>
>with plant alkaloids hurt no one but you (if it hurt anyone at all.)
>You should have been free to do whatever experimentation you want.
>
>But when your hobby impinges on other people, then the rules have
>changed.
>
>equating it with progress. Nice touch. Total baloney, but a nice
>touch.
>
>Try again.
Was I trying to ennoble anything?
Guess I missed that.
Turning virus loose in the wild certainly seems unethical to me. Turning
some destructive loose seems more unethical than some such as Happy99, which
impressed me more of an irritating bad joke. Even the law makes distinction
between an armed robber and a thief. I have noticed that some seem to hate
all virus writers as if all are the same and equally evil.
And what does the vitriolic cursing accomplish? I would suppose that
some of the more malicious fellows find that rather gratifying. If the
intent was to piss someone off a lot would not the greater tantrum someone
has at them just serve to show they have accomplished their goal? Hell, you
feed the beast you hate.
Hell, I barely know enough to move some files here and there in DOS. But
as a spectator I do find some amusement in the counterproductive things
folks do to their own ends in some of these contentions.
Randy Abrams
PaX <P...@ultimatechaos.org> wrote in message
news:7tvq1g$lg1$1...@nclient15-gui.server.virgin.net...
> >>>>>then tell how no Vx'er can control his/her actions
> in the face of an insult.<<<<<
>
>
> *cough* *cough* RANDY!!!!!
>
>
Hey, I'm just passing along Spanska's lame arguments. I don't say that I buy
into them.
Omnivore
and misunderstood some, - perhaps.
I don't feel all that shy about posting how to make silver acetylehide
(sp?) Anyone wanting to do some mischief could find such recipes easily
enough. And if they can come up with a secondary explosive I am sure the
primary would be no problem. I'd even get a kick out of hearing someone
followed some instruction of mine and managed to get some ammonium nitrate
on fire.
As I said in another post: I barely know enough DOS to move some files
about and maybe write some stuff to autoexec and such like. - Gonna get me
some books about programming one of these days.
I mostly came to this group to vent some tantrums about McCafee. Then
stayed around for this and that.
I see folks have fits and tantrums at other folks that say they do some
writing of virus. I guess my interest in the ethical considerations is quite
off topic other than being related to the topic. - Well, I guess the purpose
of the group is to help folks having virus problems and AV problems and the
like. Having tantrums at virus writers may be a topic for some such as
alt.virus.ethics?
I don't know squat about the writings and workings of virus. I would
suppose some fellow may do some good if he found some novel approach and
then gave or sold it to some AV manufacturer who could then come up with
something to deal with that sort of thing. - but I am just babbling about
something I know nothing of.
I'd think that the folks who write AV must be quite accomplished at
writing virus themselves? I've wondered if some did not originate from some
AV manufacturer who thought they may need a boost in business.
I don't think I said anything that should have indicated that I would
justify releasing a virus in the wild. - I must have though since you got
that impression.
Someone did say something about holes in security though. I guess that
is really a different issue. - I could see the point of view of someone who
may point out some hole they found to some outfit like Microsoft and
Microsoft may ignore it. Then it may considered a noble effort if some
person were to introduce some irritation through that hole to get attention
before more malicious person comes up with something more destructive. - But
I think someone already pointed out that holes in security has nothing to do
with virus.
I am quite a fan of Thoreau myself. I think his civil disobedience
involves more of refusal to do things than of doing things. I've seen some
folks to quote him on one had while advocating some such as to take up arms
against war on the other. - seemed pretty absurd to me.
Due to some other misinterpretations of some things I said in other
places, I just had urge to point out that I said "more" of one than the
other of doing things in relation to Thoreau. - Folks often come back at me
as if some statement like that was exclusive of one thing or the other.
Though I do not recall reading of him ever picketing anywhere. Near as
I can think at the moment it seemed he was one to even advocate not
doing/participating than to be telling folks stuff they ought to be doing. -
Seemed pretty proper for someone I gather had some Taoist inclinations.
Folks hate mosquitoes and would likely wish they didn't exist. Not much
use in that though. I agree that someone who puts out virus is as much a
vandal as someone who breaks into a school or home and destroys much.
Brings to mind of when I was in high school and it was a week end. The
coach happened to come by when some of us were around the basketball court
and someone asked him if he would let us have a basketball. He said he did
not have the key to the gym with him and I demonstrated that the gym door
could be opened with a Popsicle stick. He gave us the ball, but he should
also have seen to getting some better secure locks. (Never even questioned
me of why I knew I could get in there so quick and easy.)
The fellow who says he made Happy99 says this and that about his
motives. I dunno what they may have been. I think the result has been a
number of folks getting more into some AV software and maybe becoming more
safe from some more destructive mischief. - If that were a motive I would
think it commendable enough. Doesn't matter to me of his motive though. It
is the only virus (worm - whatever....) I got surprised by. It did result in
my becoming more virus conscious and kept me from picking up at least one
thing I forget the name of.
Oh well ...... I don't even know why I am writing so much. - Bored
maybe.
Richard Lupu wrote in message <3803e6d6...@news.skypoint.com>...
>Omnivore, thank you for not disclosing the
>full recipe of the detonator. Also, thank
>you for the most convoluted but entertaining
>arguments so far. I understand where you where
>going with this but I am afraid your conclusion
>falls short of justifing any virus that is released into the
>wild. If I may, freedom does not absolve culpability.
>Personal rights do not absolve responsibility. Even
>though comparing virus writing to creating a high
>class explosive in your, I assume residential, neighborhood
>is different, I will for the sake of argument contiunue.
>I have no problem if you want to create an explosive
>that can be used for a detonator just as I have to
>problems with anyone who wants to create viruses
>and keep them safe in their own home. But Omnivore,
>what happens if that product leaves your home.
>Are you safe from recourse simply because it
>was your right to create the said product?
>Are you safe from culpability and blame?
>I am afraid the answers are no. Same with
>Vxers. If you knowingly or accidently allow
>the virus to be introduced to the wild then I am
>afraid you must take the blame for its destruction.
>I find it interesteing that you use Oklahoma as an
>example. Lets run with that. What if someone did
>get their hands on your explosive Omnivore?
>What if they placed your high grade detonator in a
>mixture of a certain type of fertilizer mixed with a
>certain type of petroleum product and then put
>it into a truck and parked in front of a goverment
>building? Civil rights and freedom that are enjoyed by
>USAmericans and other countries do not equate to
>immunity when pertaining to blame. Do I hate Vxers or
>condone violence towards Vxers? Absolutely not,
>after all we are talking viruses here and that needs
>to be kept in perspective.
>
>So freedom and civil rights no not justify the
>introduction of viruses into the wild, then how
>about "Civil Disobedience". This is harder because
>the lines of civil disobedience by their nature are
>anarchical and difficult to define. I guess I will take
>my que from H. D. Thoreau. He taught that
>great change can come about through
>civil disobedience but one thing you will never
>find in his teachings are were he preaches that
>this absolved him of all responisibility for his actions.
>Nor does he or any other that I have studied
>taught actions that would cause harm on others.
>They left that for the terrorists.
>
>If you want to release viruses into the wild, fine.
>
>Please do not use freedom and civil rights to justify your
>actions.
>
>Please do not hide behind the facades of the martyr
>or the rebel or any other fantasy character that may
>help ease guilt or try to romanticize the actions.
>
>Vxers, please make no mistake, This ain't Nottingham and
>you ain't Robin Hood.
>
>Your "hobby at home is fine and probably fun.
>Your "hobby" in the wild brings about much pain and any
>conceivable benefit is negligible and could be found
>via other venues.
>
>If you want to do criminal acts at least have the pride
>to stand up and admit it and not be surprised when the
>world wants to hurt you. I do not condone the violence but
>it can hardly be of any real shock. If someone vandalized my
>car my thoughts would not be of the purest nature. The same holds
>true of my computer. Does it make my feelings right? No, but the fact
>remains that I did not invite the virus in. It infected by design and
>in doing so violated my computer privacy. It is a terroristic act.
>There is a reason why terrorists are reviled around the world.
>
>Rich
>
>
>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 20:16:22 -0700, "Omnivore"
><sun...@SPAMOFFpacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Richard Lupu wrote in message <3802d1e7...@news.skypoint.com>...
>>>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:33:19 +0100, "PaX" <P...@ultimatechaos.org>
>>>wrote:
PaX
all virus writers as if all are the same and equally evil.<<<<
Yup thats what some of us find annoying ,it's similar to saying "I got blue
screened" "It's Randys fault as he works for Microsoft".
Some times being berrated because of what I do is at the least
understandable but the thing I find most unexplainable is why somebody would
hate Dalton as well as PaX.Lemme see if I can ilustrate my position...
Dalton is PaX ,PaX is a virus writer,Virus writers are ALL evil therefore
Dalton is Evil.
Yes I can see where the conections are being made but I fail to understand
the resoning behind it.I can also see Spanskas point about generic hatered
although maybe not the best choice of illustration he did have a valid
point.ie:John Doe is black,Black people are evil ,therefore John Doe is
evil.(Please note I have NO racial prejudices this is just an example)
It's the generic hatred I think he was trying to point out,I'm sure there
was no intention to belittle the great sacrifice made by so many for our
freedoms.
>>>>>And what does the vitriolic cursing accomplish? I would suppose that
some of the more malicious fellows find that rather gratifying. If the
intent was to piss someone off a lot would not the greater tantrum someone
has at them just serve to show they have accomplished their goal? Hell, you
feed the beast you hate.<<<<<<<
Yup right again Omni..
I'm NOT one of the above people but I
would agree that if that is what they seek then the hotter the flames ,the
more gratified they would feel.
As a final point I'm not here to try and justify/covert people to my way of
thinking all I can do is offer some of my reasons for what I do and maybe
some help where possible.
I would like to say Thanx to Randy for his comments in another thread..
"It's noting personel against PaX other than his hobby"
Thats a comment I can respect......
PaX [Dalton]
DigitAl56K
>>Vx and AV, you do your best efforts to end it by
>>compulsively insulting one side.
>
>Again, I am afraid I do not see this. I have seen plenty
>of requests for debate go unanswered that were gentile
>and honest. More often than not the only posts I see
>representatives from the Vx community answer are those
>that they find insulting. This in of itself is intriguing. I am
>genuinely surprised when a Vxer takes offense at being
>despised. It runs along the same line as a burgler being
>surprised that most homeowners hate them. Please make
>no mistake, although I cannot speak for the whole world, I
>think I can safely say Vxers are generally hated, by most,
>as a group.
I am not surprised that VXers get offended by being despised, because
there are those out there who do not have the malicous intent which
the media is so insistent upon.
Just because you write viruses does not mean you intend to harm people
with them. This is an AV group and hence it is not easy to get this
message accross. You are almost definately right that VXers are
generally hated by most people, but then most people will never get to
hear of the non-malicous kind.
You could for instance walk up to someone in the street and ask
someone who has never touched a computer in their life what their
views on VXing are. They will tell you that VXers should all be locked
up, because thats what the media tell them to believe. If the media
was suddenly to start reporting that a lot of VXers will never spread
their work and also some of the reasons people write viruses then
perhaps VXers would not all be accused of being "evil". This of course
is hardly likely to happen.
I might argue that a lot of people don't like politicians, you hear a
lot of bad stories. But you also get to hear the positive side to
things. Imagine if you never heard the positive side though - everyone
would hate politicians and eventually no-one would see them as
beneficial. Ok - its a poor analogy to use but VXers have never
experienced any positive media intrest (at least not by any publicly
respected media that I know of).
I do not want to force my opinions of VXing onto others - I merely ask
that those who dislike VXers recognize that every VXer is an
individual and should be treated as such.
>Are you really
>surprised there are those who hate you? Why do you
>think this hate is unjustified? Please do not equate yourself
>to the Innocent Jews and black individuals that were
>persecuted wrongly. If you are presecuted it is brought
>by your own actions. Do us all a favor. If you believe
>that what you are doing when you create a virus is
>all right then argue the point without insults. Ignore those
>who insult you and state the facts and arguments that
>condone malicous code in an articulate and
>professional manner. But by all means please do not
>equate your suffering with those who have suffered
>true bigotry and racism.
To some extent (and I do not agree with the overall statement) VXers
are being judjed as a whole becuase of what they are. Some are
innocent of what they are frequently accused of (malicous spreading).
-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-
Visit the DigitAl56K Website
http://www.digital56k.free-online.co.uk
Get AVDisk v3 for F-Prot (Software section)
-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-
DigitAl56K
<TINLC#15...@example.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:47:42 -0700, "Omnivore"
><sun...@SPAMOFFpacbell.net>, eager to engage in discussion said:
>
>[snip]
>>
>> If someone gets shot let us go hang the nearest gun owner.
>> If someone gets hung let us go drown the nearest person with a rope.
>>
>Every time someone gets a virus infection, let's go pummel the nearest
>virus writer to death?
Or do the same to the user who got infected by not keeping their av up
to date - or not having any at all. Or maybe the av company for not
detecting the virus. Or maybe the person who infected the computer. Or
the person who sent the virus.
Al Leitch
DigitAl56K wrote:
> >>Each time some serious debate occures here between
> >>Vx and AV, you do your best efforts to end it by
> >>compulsively insulting one side.
> >
> >Again, I am afraid I do not see this. I have seen plenty
> >of requests for debate go unanswered that were gentile
> >and honest. More often than not the only posts I see
> >representatives from the Vx community answer are those
> >that they find insulting. This in of itself is intriguing. I am
> >genuinely surprised when a Vxer takes offense at being
> >despised. It runs along the same line as a burgler being
> >surprised that most homeowners hate them. Please make
> >no mistake, although I cannot speak for the whole world, I
> >think I can safely say Vxers are generally hated, by most,
> >as a group.
>
> I am not surprised that VXers get offended by being despised, because
> there are those out there who do not have the malicous intent which
> the media is so insistent upon.
> Just because you write viruses does not mean you intend to harm people
> with them. This is an AV group and hence it is not easy to get this
> message accross. You are almost definately right that VXers are
> generally hated by most people, but then most people will never get to
> hear of the non-malicous kind.
>
Think of what sells more, the malicious type or the not so malicious
type. Unfortunately, the media is a big money oriented entity.
> You could for instance walk up to someone in the street and ask
> someone who has never touched a computer in their life what their
> views on VXing are. They will tell you that VXers should all be locked
> up, because thats what the media tell them to believe. If the media
> was suddenly to start reporting that a lot of VXers will never spread
> their work and also some of the reasons people write viruses then
> perhaps VXers would not all be accused of being "evil". This of course
> is hardly likely to happen.
>
Especially with all of the unknowledgable news reporters that they hire.
>
> I might argue that a lot of people don't like politicians, you hear a
> lot of bad stories. But you also get to hear the positive side to
> things. Imagine if you never heard the positive side though - everyone
> would hate politicians and eventually no-one would see them as
> beneficial. Ok - its a poor analogy to use but VXers have never
> experienced any positive media intrest (at least not by any publicly
> respected media that I know of).
>
> I do not want to force my opinions of VXing onto others - I merely ask
> that those who dislike VXers recognize that every VXer is an
> individual and should be treated as such.
>
Good point!
>
> >Are you really
> >surprised there are those who hate you? Why do you
> >think this hate is unjustified? Please do not equate yourself
> >to the Innocent Jews and black individuals that were
> >persecuted wrongly. If you are presecuted it is brought
> >by your own actions. Do us all a favor. If you believe
> >that what you are doing when you create a virus is
> >all right then argue the point without insults. Ignore those
> >who insult you and state the facts and arguments that
> >condone malicous code in an articulate and
> >professional manner. But by all means please do not
> >equate your suffering with those who have suffered
> >true bigotry and racism.
>
> To some extent (and I do not agree with the overall statement) VXers
> are being judjed as a whole becuase of what they are. Some are
> innocent of what they are frequently accused of (malicous spreading).
>
> -==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-
> Visit the DigitAl56K Website
> http://www.digital56k.free-online.co.uk
> Get AVDisk v3 for F-Prot (Software section)
> -==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-
Team2000 Palm Pilot/PC Programming Team:
http://ppilot.homepage.com - Win32/DOS ASM in NASM and a Palm OS virus
paper I wrote (Why such virii would have difficulties in spreading)
Omnivore
PaX wrote in message <7u0bv5$e6b$1...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net>...
snip
>
>As a final point I'm not here to try and justify/covert people to my way of
>thinking all I can do is offer some of my reasons for what I do and maybe
>some help where possible.
Ha ha - seems the ones spewing all the hate are trying most for
converts.
I guess I don't really follow why to feel different about PaX than about
Dalton. I am sometimes different under a Johann persona - but that is
theater of sorts.
I think I was in a bitchy mood at you the other day about something, but
i have been reading what you express and it mostly seems fine with me.
I don't even expect to accomplish anything in expressing some
disagreement with the folks who express the hatred and name calling. - Hell,
I stop and think aobut it and I don't know why I am bothering to express any
opinions at all. - Maybe I feel some distant kindred for sake of various
interests that I have had that seemed to be weird and viewed with suspicion
and malice by others.
Omnivore
Randy Abrams wrote in message ...
>in the face of an insult.
>
>
>Randy
Interesting how your post express that you missed the persons point
entirely and that you seem to think in either-or terms of who may or may not
be responsible for this or that.
I don't think someone is necessarily excusing the behavior of someone
when someone else is egging them on to do what they claim to not want done.
Is it illegal to leave your keys in your car unattended where you live?
Richard Lupu
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
>Richard Lupu:
>
>>I am genuinely surprised when a Vxer takes offense at being
>>despised.
>
>You're right here, of course. I'm not really hurt by Nick
>comments, actually. I think the main victim of Nick is
>himself, in term of credibility. I'm just trying to understand
>what are his motivations, and to figure out what can explain
>his crazy behavior in this group. I'm a researcher. Some people
>are interesting as humans, other are interesting as guinea pigs.
>Nick falls in the latter category.
I really did not assume that you or any other Vxer, not to include
you in that group if you are not, were insulted. What I am refering
to is the "I am a persucted martyr" syndrome that seems to
sometimes permeate the posts.
>As you said, virus writers are expected to be insulted. And
>i could say they like that, because a lot of them want to
>behave as "underground asocial bandits". Insulting them is
>the same as telling them they do the right thing. They are
>confirmed in their true or simulated antisocial feelings.
>Note that, as an example, Nick is partially responsible for
>one virus (ColdApe if i remember) that was "dedicated" to
>him. By constantly insulting coders, he give them the good
>motivation to continue their hobby. He feeds them, exactly
>like people hating trolls but responding to their messages
>(we had a good example in this group two weeks ago).
Well, as a guilty pleasure I do have to admit that troll was
entertaining to say the least. The post had the same effect as a
train wreck. I knew I shouldn't read them but the allure was
simply to funny to miss ;-)
I can only speak for myself when I say that I do not hate
Vxers. I most certainly do not. I am also not trying to
protect Nick of defend his posts. Nick is more
experienced on this forum than myself and I would
not try to speak for any other person. I was not
arguing the fact that strong words were used against
you but rather that the equation was drawn to the
persecuted of history. There are major differences
which I will be happy to discuss more in depth if you
wish. I plan to in another response I have to type out. ;-)
>So Nick, a supposed AV person, is doing all he can do to
>motivate virus coders. I try to think about this
>basical contradiction. Two hypothesis: Nick has a
>schizoid behavior (he's not the same, loosing control
>when talking about virus coders), or even more weird, this
>is done on purpose, a sort of strategy to give Vx reasons
>to code new viruses.
>
Ah, I see that does clarify the original post on the
schizoid personality although I still do not totaly agree
that it applies to Nick but that is simply my opinion.
>Just a personal point of view to terminate. I tried to talk
>honestly to people in this group for more than three years,
>avoiding as i could the name calling stupid fights. I can
>say that the persons with most important impact on me were
>the ones who discussed quietly and seriously: Kurt, Bruce,
>Pierre of course, sometimes Graham, even George, some other.
>If you want coders to think about their hobby and the
>implications of what they do, talk to them. Do not insult
>them.
>
Well, if you wish you may also include me in your discussions.
I am anti-Vx but I am also intelligent to discuss matters
coherently and professionally. I do have concerns with the
terminology of "hobby" though. I think sometimes Vxers
forget how much pain that their "hobby" can bring on the
gerneral populous. If it is a hobby I am afraid it is of a sadistic
nature.
Thank you for your response,
Rich
Richard Lupu
Richard Lupu
drift when I respond and for this I apologize. It is a bad habit
and one I try to work on. I was not implying that you were
releasing viruses into the wild. My opinion is that
there is often a feeling that because we live in a free
society that this somehow gives us the right to create
anything we want with out regard to the concequences.
I know it sometimes seems like Tantrums but compared to most
newsgroups I have spent time on over the years this is still one
of the more professional and informative. I guess this is why I keep
coming back. I wish I had the staying power of many but I am on the
road often and it is hard. I like the ability to discuss with not only
both sides but the different levels on each side. Even though I do
not agree with some opinions I am sure there are many who do not
agree with mine.
I recommend staying around. Do not worry if others flame you. It is
going to happen here no matter how careful you are. This can be a good
place to get help, find information and just have a little fun ;-)
As with anything this should not be your sole source of information.
I feel this group has a lot more to offer than simply virus help.
I cannot speak for anyone else but I know I would be bored to tears
if all I read were, "Help, I have a virus and no A/V software." posts.
It is only so often you can direct people to the flame pages.
<snip>
>Then it may considered a noble effort if some
>person were to introduce some irritation through that hole to get attention
>before more malicious person comes up with something more destructive
</snip>
I know what you are saying but I for one will not buy into this. I am
afraid I must emphatically denounce this as media fodder and nothing
more. There are many different ways to reach MS and harming
innocent users is not an appropriate one. I am not going to go into
the whole MS bad/good thing here. I think this thread is big enough
without adding that to it. ;-)
<snip>
> I am quite a fan of Thoreau myself. I think his civil disobedience
>involves more of refusal to do things than of doing things. I've seen some
>folks to quote him on one had while advocating some such as to take up arms
>against war on the other. - seemed pretty absurd to me.
> Due to some other misinterpretations of some things I said in other
>places, I just had urge to point out that I said "more" of one than the
>other of doing things in relation to Thoreau. - Folks often come back at me
>as if some statement like that was exclusive of one thing or the other.
> Though I do not recall reading of him ever picketing anywhere. Near as
>I can think at the moment it seemed he was one to even advocate not
>doing/participating than to be telling folks stuff they ought to be doing. -
>Seemed pretty proper for someone I gather had some Taoist inclinations.
</snip>
No I believe you have it right. This was the point I was trying to
make. Again I apologize if my response seemed directed at you.
I can rant myself and it usually it is at the mentality of some, but
not all, of the Vxers in general. This one was for those who justify
releasing viruses in the wild under the guise of civil disobedience.
You are right Thoreau was more of not doing than doing. That was
clear from the times he spent in prison. This is exactly the point
I was trying to make. Releasing viruses into the wild cannot
be classified as civil disobedience.
In a nutshell I am simply exressing my opinion that if you are going
to commit the crime to stand up acknowledge it and not to come
up with erroneous reasons to justify it. Just my opinion ;-)
Rich
Richard Lupu
drift when I respond and for this I apologize. It is a bad habit
and one I try to work on. I was not implying that you were
releasing viruses into the wild. My opinion is that
there is often a feeling that because we live in a free
society that this somehow gives us the right to create
anything we want with out regard to the concequences.
I know it sometimes seems like Tantrums but compared to most
newsgroups I have spent time on over the years this is still one
of the more professional and informative. I guess this is why I keep
coming back. I wish I had the staying power of many but I am on the
road often and it is hard. I like the ability to discuss with not only
both sides but the different levels on each side. Even though I do
not agree with some opinions I am sure there are many who do not
agree with mine.
I recommend staying around. Do not worry if others flame you. It is
going to happen here no matter how careful you are. This can be a good
place to get help, find information and just have a little fun ;-)
As with anything this should not be your sole source of information.
I feel this group has a lot more to offer than simply virus help.
I cannot speak for anyone else but I know I would be bored to tears
if all I read were, "Help, I have a virus and no A/V software." posts.
It is only so often you can direct people to the flame pages.
<snip>
>Then it may considered a noble effort if some
>person were to introduce some irritation through that hole to get attention
>before more malicious person comes up with something more destructive
</snip>
I know what you are saying but I for one will not buy into this. I am
afraid I must emphatically denounce this as media fodder and nothing
more. There are many different ways to reach MS and harming
innocent users is not an appropriate one. I am not going to go into
the whole MS bad/good thing here. I think this thread is big enough
without adding that to it. ;-)
<snip>
> I am quite a fan of Thoreau myself. I think his civil disobedience
>involves more of refusal to do things than of doing things. I've seen some
>folks to quote him on one had while advocating some such as to take up arms
>against war on the other. - seemed pretty absurd to me.
> Due to some other misinterpretations of some things I said in other
>places, I just had urge to point out that I said "more" of one than the
>other of doing things in relation to Thoreau. - Folks often come back at me
>as if some statement like that was exclusive of one thing or the other.
> Though I do not recall reading of him ever picketing anywhere. Near as
>I can think at the moment it seemed he was one to even advocate not
>doing/participating than to be telling folks stuff they ought to be doing. -
>Seemed pretty proper for someone I gather had some Taoist inclinations.
Omnivore
Richard Lupu wrote in message <38044a6b....@news.skypoint.com>...
>Thanks Omnivore for the response. I do sometimes go on and
>drift when I respond and for this I apologize. It is a bad habit
>and one I try to work on.
Don't apologize. I don't know if the habit is all that bad. - though I
do it myself and think it to be a bad habit sometimes. Then again..........
>I was not implying that you were
>releasing viruses into the wild.
Yea - I wouldn not. I did gut a Happy99 to post and ask a question once.
Surprised me that it posted as an attachement and looked like the real
thing - just short a lot of bytes. - Someone gave me hell and someone else
said it was ok. - No on answered my damn question though.
> My opinion is that
>there is often a feeling that because we live in a free
>society that this somehow gives us the right to create
>anything we want with out regard to the concequences.
Lot of that "free" is a fraud.
Lot of free is to be free of folks giving one another a lot of shit and
computer virus can certainly do some lot of harm.
>
snip
>
>I recommend staying around. Do not worry if others flame you. It is
>going to happen here no matter how careful you are. This can be a good
>place to get help, find information and just have a little fun ;-)
Yea - I stay here nad there until I loose interest and drift elsewhere.
As for flames: I have generally found that to be some sport. If someone
is determined to be pissed off about something I am one to give them what
they seem to want. It is an amusement but I prefer to keep it to a couple of
groups elsewhere.
snip
>
><snip>
>>Then it may considered a noble effort if some
>>person were to introduce some irritation through that hole to get
attention
>>before more malicious person comes up with something more destructive
></snip>
>
>I know what you are saying but I for one will not buy into this. I am
>afraid I must emphatically denounce this as media fodder and nothing
>more. There are many different ways to reach MS and harming
>innocent users is not an appropriate one. I am not going to go into
>the whole MS bad/good thing here. I think this thread is big enough
>without adding that to it. ;-)
Yea - I dunno. Seen some bitching in places other than this of the great
MS not paying good attention sometimes. - think if I was some computer
genious I might have at some of those things with som bs that would just
display a "Gotcha" a few times and go away.
Hell, when some kids get into a Pentagon computer I would think they
ought be grateful that the brats revealed a vulnerability before some
serious hostile country did so.
snip
>
>No I believe you have it right. This was the point I was trying to
>make. Again I apologize if my response seemed directed at you.
>I can rant myself and it usually it is at the mentality of some, but
>not all, of the Vxers in general. This one was for those who justify
>releasing viruses in the wild under the guise of civil disobedience.
>You are right Thoreau was more of not doing than doing. That was
>clear from the times he spent in prison. This is exactly the point
>I was trying to make. Releasing viruses into the wild cannot
>be classified as civil disobedience.
Apologize? I don't see what for.
I think Thoreau spent one night in prison and then wrote a beration
about whoever paid the tax he was holding out on. Think he described it as
being a compounded impropriety for sake of paying the tax when the fellow
was not required to.
I'd suppose it would take a fair amount of time for someone like Thoreau
to start not enjoying the jail experience. My own first experience was when
I was 44 and it took some time for the novelty to get old.
>In a nutshell I am simply exressing my opinion that if you are going
>to commit the crime to stand up acknowledge it and not to come
>up with erroneous reasons to justify it. Just my opinion ;-)
Yea - I concur. - I used to sell drugs and then did some
reconsiderations and quit and told my customer folks to go away. Then when I
thought I was getting all straight i got set up and went to prison for three
years for something I didn't do and had never done and particularly told
folks to kiss off that tried to talk me into manufacturing the stuff.
Folks still want to argue with me about the morality of the affair of my
dealing drugs. I mostly tell the stupid sons of bitches to kiss my ass and
pay attention to what I said of my deciding to quit well before I got into
trouble anyway. And as for crap about "the children" - the little brats
didn't get any from me and if it trickled down through someone it would not
make a lot of difference since anyone wanting anything is going to get it
somewhere whether I am involved or not.
I had a lot of considerations that led to my quitting the whole affair.
Most of the crap folks want to argue didn't enter into it. Most of the dope
dealers i have known were assholes but some were pretty good folks. Bust
them and send them to jail is something that can go on forever because
taking on out just creates a vacuum that will be quickly filled by someone
who may never have gotten into the business otherwise.
Well, now I am rambling and getting terribly off topic.
>
>Rich
Nick FitzGerald
> Of course you have documented evidence that one of my creations
has
> impinged on anothers rights??Or maybe even that it has made the wild
list??
> I thought not...as I have always said I don't want people to agree or
> disagree with me just to respect the fact that i'm different...
So, you have *never* given any representation of self-replicating
code to another person, *ever*?
If that really is true of you, you are all but unique amongst
virus writers. I seriously doubt it is true though...
And even if it is, how do we know you will continue this almost
'monastic' life? Or is that you write such an uncreative
viruses that none of your virus writing/VX buddies would be seen
dead with your code?
--
Nick FitzGerald
Nick FitzGerald
> Nick FitzGerald wrote in message
<01bf1377$90e620e0$87f0a7cb@mobilenick>...
> >Tam <P...@ultimatechaos.org> wrote:
> snip
> >I notice you chose not to debate the *substantive* claims
> >in my post. For what reason? Because my obvious disgust
> >of your worthless "hobby" upset you, so you set about
> >attacking me? The other readers see through such miserable
> >facades very easily Tam.
> >
> >Come on -- if there is any real value in what you do,
> >debate the *issues*! I know you can't, but we might have
> >some fun at your expense while you try...
>
> On the contrary. I do not agree with some of something the other
fellow
> posted awhile back. But I see your views as rather absolutist and
bigoted.
Nope -- it's just that you and your ilk have been too lame
over the last decade or so to level any vaguely convincing
argument to suggest my view needs adjusting. Through that
time, countless cardboard cutouts have spewed the same
dribble you have just spouted and you (or others) will go
on to spout in this thread.
It's not that I'm bigoted -- just that I hold the
intellectual and moral highground over you, you are
powerless to fix that as you are simply in the wrong and
you know that but are too gutless to admit it. The
continuing lameness of those who fail to see this, would
amuse me, were it not so miserably sad that so many
(reputedly) clever youngsters seem destined to repeat the
mistakes of their virus writing/VX forerunners.
> Some virus writers seem willing to post here and there seems some
chance
The 'chance to post' is not the problem. The 'problem' is
that they refuse to learn and seldom address the arguments
made against them. *That* is intellectual dishonesty --
"we'd like to debate this... but won't talk about the real
issues". Come on, please...
> of learning this or that. Is vilifying and name calling going to serve
any
> constructive purpose then if you insult someone enough to go away?
*If* you attended to my earlier posts in this thread, you
might have actually noticed that I presented several rather
interesting ('intellectual' even) claims about the
differences between 'security exploits' and 'viruses', and
why using the existence of the former to justify writing
thelatter was psuedo-intellectual wanking. Of course, you
and your pro-virus buddies immediately took up an ad
hominem attack on me instead of engaging my claims.
Why was that? Because I am right that, like several
generations of pro-virus people before you, your position
is so lame that it cannot really even begin to justify its
existence in a real debate so deflection to personalities
is all you are left with?
--
Nick FitzGerald
Nick FitzGerald
> Your views are more than often discredited by
> your language, as everybody noticed.
Let me see -- the people who claim it is invalid to
discredit their ethics because they behave in unethical
ways are now arguing that my views are discredited
because I use strong language?
Maybe I have strong views? That's a lot better than
acting unethically...
> Each time some serious debate occures here between
> Vx and AV, you do your best efforts to end it by
> compulsively insulting one side.
"Each time" ?? Come on -- I am not that prolific a
reader or writer of News. Recently I have decided that
the kid glove -- treat them with respect -- approach has
been singularly unsuccessful in dissuading people
entering VX/virus writing and decided that it was time
to call a spade a spade. I'm under no illusions of the
likely effect. I know what I'm doing. *You* seem
surprised that some of those you saw as "moderates" hold
-- and will express -- such strongly negative views
about what you do. Well, bad luck -- in general your
"hobby" is despised, as are those who follow it.
Don't like that? Well wake up and smell the coffee then
get a responsible hobby or a life.
> >Because they are incapable of evolving or
> >"improving".
>
> This is a definition of yourself? Look in the mirror,
> Nick.
I see a well-adjusted, ethical professional. Your point?
> While i have nothing to say about your messages helping
> people or talking about AV industry, because they use a
> normal language, it's obvious that whenever you talk
> to or about virus writers, you just loose total control
That may be "obvious" to you, but that just shows how
out of touch with me and my motivations you are. That
you cannot think of several much more interesting
possibilities shows a surprising lack of imagination on
your part.
> of yourself, sometimes flirting with the limits of the
> law (incitation to suicide, threats...), and of course
> i'm not talking about the limits of good taste.
So sue me...
> This has a name in psychiatry. It's called schizophrenia.
...which you know from first-hand exposure to those
who treat its sufferers, perhaps??
If you see real signs of psychiatric illness in my
posts, you either have an overactive Freudian gland
or a poor teacher. Or perhaps you really are just
too far out of touch...
> Last days i've check a bit in Dejanews the messages you
> posted last months. They reminded me something. After a
> while, i remembered i did the same kind of research about
> white supremacists, racists or members of KKK. They use
> exactly the same dialectics as yours, against black or
> jew people, when you use it against virus writers. We
> could literally cut and replace these messages of hate.
Yeah, yeah. And just like most "supremacists" and
"hate crime" supporters, I post from heavily anonymized
addresses, making every possible attempt to hide my real
identity. You really are losing it Spanska...
> Nick, frankly, when you talk to virus coders, you no more
> look like a antivirus specialist. You look like a fascist.
> And fascists are considered more dangerous to society than
> virus writers.
Ohhh -- I'm a Nazi now... Roll on the death camps!
I'd suggest that you get more of a grip, but in this
case less of one might be appropriate -- it seems
you've been keeping too much of your blood from your
brain for too long...
--
Nick FitzGerald
Nick FitzGerald
> I had an interest and fascination with plant alkaloids.
<<yawn>>
> It seems easy enough for folks to condemn what they do not
understand.
> The motives of one who may have an unusual hobby is certainly suspect.
But I
> would suppose that if some human didn't pursue interesting and dangerous
> things we would be still eating our food raw and would not have great
> problem with depleting ozone layer.
Uninteresting rant.
*What* does that all have to do with the issue I thought you
were trying to debate here?
Intent is irrelevant if society thinks something is
'undesirable'. I do not care whether a drunk driver
*intended* to crash into another vehicle, killing and
maiming others. It matters not -- society as a whole
feels the driver should have considered this before
deciding to drive (or even better, before deciding to
drink). Regardless of the driver's intentions viz
killing others, they should not have driven.
Next time, please try to offer a vaguely relevant analogy.
--
Nick FitzGerald
Nick FitzGerald
> Turning virus loose in the wild certainly seems unethical to me.
Turning
> some destructive loose seems more unethical than some such as Happy99,
which
> impressed me more of an irritating bad joke. Even the law makes
distinction
> between an armed robber and a thief. I have noticed that some seem to
hate
> all virus writers as if all are the same and equally evil.
You see -- *that's* where your problem is.
It matters not whether a virus has a payload or not, or whether
its payload is "an irritating bad joke" or something akin to
that of CIH. Self-replicating programs that (generally) sneak
onto their victims' machines are generally seen as inherently
bad or at least inherently undesirable.
Thus, *anyone* who creates such a program has broken a serious
"computing society taboo". The nature or "degree" of payload
is irrelevant in making this decision, as is any other aspect
of the code. The thing that makes computer viruses "worse" as
regards this, is the fact that by their very design, they are
essentially going to spread "on their own". Thus, those in
control of any piece of viral code must ensure that control is
*never* lost.
History shows us that your lot are not able to maintain that
control. That adds the revulsion your side receives.
> And what does the vitriolic cursing accomplish? I would suppose that
> some of the more malicious fellows find that rather gratifying. If the
> intent was to piss someone off a lot would not the greater tantrum
someone
> has at them just serve to show they have accomplished their goal? Hell,
you
> feed the beast you hate.
> Hell, I barely know enough to move some files here and there in DOS.
But
> as a spectator I do find some amusement in the counterproductive things
> folks do to their own ends in some of these contentions.
Ah, yes. Blame the victim.
The ultimate losers cop-out...
--
Nick FitzGerald
Raid Slam
<ni...@virus-l.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Let me see -- the people who claim it is invalid to
> discredit their ethics because they behave in unethical
> ways are now arguing that my views are discredited
> because I use strong language?
> Maybe I have strong views? That's a lot better than
> acting unethically...
Hmm. No, Your views are narrow minded. Your words speak venom, but as
with most things which bark; Their is no bite.
Your a prime example of hate for fellow man. You hate (for life) anyone
who's ever written a virus. Your ego got you in a world of shit once
already. I guess it's time somebody writes another virus like
MonkeyLove and teaches you (again) the value of well choosen words.
> Ohhh -- I'm a Nazi now... Roll on the death camps!
> I'd suggest that you get more of a grip, but in this
> case less of one might be appropriate -- it seems
> you've been keeping too much of your blood from your
> brain for too long...
Careful Nick. I'd hate for you and Virus Bulletin to have thousands and
thousands of emails, data files from infected users. Oh the Rumors of
your intentions with those data files. Could be fun tho? :)
Regards,
Raid [SLAM]
http://www.coderz.net/Raid
"The site that AVers have tried to shutdown, but could not. Wahaha"
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Nick FitzGerald
> >>>I have noticed that some seem to hate
> all virus writers as if all are the same and equally evil.<<<<
>
> Yup thats what some of us find annoying ,it's similar to saying "I got
blue
> screened" "It's Randys fault as he works for Microsoft".
Wrong analogy. See my recent followup to the quoted post
for the reasons.
> Some times being berrated because of what I do is at the least
> understandable but the thing I find most unexplainable is why somebody
would
> hate Dalton as well as PaX.Lemme see if I can ilustrate my position...
>
> Dalton is PaX ,PaX is a virus writer,Virus writers are ALL evil therefore
> Dalton is Evil.
Wrong. Dalton *does* evil.
If you're going to paraphrase me (??), at least try to do
so with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
> Yes I can see where the conections are being made but I fail to
understand
> the resoning behind it. ...
Well, first, you got the verb wrong...
Next, if you believe that calling yourself one thing on the
net and another in your personal life means there are "two
different yous", then you should avail yourself of some of
the professional assistance Spanska would seem to have
access to, and do so really soon...
If you think that "playing out" another character absolves
the "real you" from that "person's" actions, you really
do need serious psychiatric help.
> ... I can also see Spanskas point about generic hatered
> although maybe not the best choice of illustration he did have a valid
> point.ie:John Doe is black,Black people are evil ,therefore John Doe is
> evil.(Please note I have NO racial prejudices this is just an example)
> It's the generic hatred I think he was trying to point out,I'm sure there
> was no intention to belittle the great sacrifice made by so many for our
> freedoms.
Nope -- he was just as confused as you. Instead of saying
"go Spanska, go Omni", why not stop and think about the
contrary points that have strongly dismissed that view and
its flawed approach?
> I'm NOT one of the above people but
I
> would agree that if that is what they seek then the hotter the flames
,the
> more gratified they would feel.
And you cannot think of other reasons for some persuing that
approach anyway? You really should get out more...
> As a final point I'm not here to try and justify/covert people to my way
of
> thinking all I can do is offer some of my reasons for what I do and maybe
> some help where possible.
Well, personally, I think it would do you good to think
about some of the contrary points. You can *justify* your
sorry existence till hell freezes over, but we want to
see some real debate on this. If you cannot do that, and
instead just repeat the hackneyed, lame old justifications
that have been singularly unconvincing to the merest of
critical reasoning for the last decade, you lose by
default, like so many before you.
--
Nick FitzGerald
Nick FitzGerald
> Ha ha - seems the ones spewing all the hate are trying most for
> converts.
It seems you cannot but begin to guess...
> I guess I don't really follow why to feel different about PaX than
about
> Dalton. I am sometimes different under a Johann persona - but that is
> theater of sorts.
You are right there -- it's Tam who is a bit confused on that.
> I don't even expect to accomplish anything in expressing some
> disagreement with the folks who express the hatred and name calling. -
Hell,
> I stop and think aobut it and I don't know why I am bothering to express
any
> opinions at all. - Maybe I feel some distant kindred for sake of various
> interests that I have had that seemed to be weird and viewed with
suspicion
> and malice by others.
Huh??
Whatever -- address my points about the completely bogus nature
of the 'justification' of virus writing as related to security
exploits, as most recently wheeled out in a Rolling Stone
article. That is (more or less) what started this thread but
so far, all we've had from the pro-virus mouths is more of the
same old touchy-feely 'treat me as an individual' twaddle.
--
Nick FitzGerald
Nick FitzGerald
> Hmm. No, Your views are narrow minded. Your words speak venom, but as
> with most things which bark; Their is no bite.
Poor little Raid -- is no-one playing in your sand-pit?
> Your a prime example of hate for fellow man.
You don't know me well enough to be qualified to comment.
In fact, you are quite wrong, as anyone who does know me
would likely testify (not that anything would convince you
of your ignorance in this, or anything else).
> ... You hate (for life) anyone
> who's ever written a virus.
Wrong again.
> ... Your ego got you in a world of shit once
And again.
> already. I guess it's time somebody writes another virus like
> MonkeyLove and teaches you (again) the value of well choosen words.
Another lame threat from Raid -- the virus writers that
real virus writers despise...
Oh -- and does it not say something about how pathetically
under-socialized you are that your response to someone
out-debating you is to threaten to release a virus that,
were it successful in achieving your goals, would cause
disruption to thousands of people unrelated to your
"problem"?
Its also rich that this response from you comes after
several people have tried to label the AV side
"childish". Can you say "I'm a petulant brat"? Raid?
I know you'd have trouble spelling it, so won't ask
you to write it...
> Careful Nick. I'd hate for you and Virus Bulletin to have thousands and
> thousands of emails, data files from infected users. Oh the Rumors of
> your intentions with those data files. Could be fun tho? :)
Your arrogance is only surpassed by your ignorance, little
boy, but if you want to speed up that meeting with Bubba,
I'm sure it can be arranged...
--
Nick FitzGerald
Omnivore
Nick FitzGerald wrote in message <01bf1579$ec818300$f5c9a7cb@mobilenick>...
Enjoyed reading your posts today.
Would it not be more dignified, after declaring yourself winner, to just
shut up?
PaX
real virus writers despise...<<<<
Who granted you permission to speak for virus writers???
Grow up Fitzgerald...We are here to stay,We will always be here and when we
are not here there will always be replacements..
I'm not going to speak for other authors but in the times Ive spent with
RaiD and some of my fellows I can assure you he is highly thought of by
many.When will you get used to the idea that all your foul mouthing will not
make us go away or stop what we are doing??As to bubba....hahahah SEND EM
ON..
PaX
PaX
Would it not be more dignified, after declaring yourself winner, to just
shut up?<<<<<<
Excellent point Omni....but it has always been said that "Empty vessels make
the most noise" so the chances of Fitz shutting up in the next millenium are
somewhat slim..=]
PaX
Randy Abrams
Omnivore <sun...@SPAMOFFpacbell.net> wrote in message
news:rCQM3.430$ju5....@typhoon01.swbell.net...
>
<snip>
> Interesting how your post express that you missed the persons point
> entirely and that you seem to think in either-or terms of who may or may
not
> be responsible for this or that.
> I don't think someone is necessarily excusing the behavior of someone
> when someone else is egging them on to do what they claim to not want
done.
I didn't miss Spanska's point at all. I just do not buy into his argument
that because Nick expressed dislike of virus writers, he is to blame for a
virus writer writing a virus.
> Is it illegal to leave your keys in your car unattended where you
live?
Beats me? But if you're headed toward saying that it is less than 100% the
fault of a thief for stealing if the target is easy, I won't buy that
argument either.
Regards,
Randy
--
Raid Slam
In my previous post, you seem to have taken it as some type of threat;
It's by no means a threat. If you want, I'd be happy to write a virus
to attack VirusBulletin from infected machines. It's really not
difficult to write such a thing; with all the console executables a
standard win9x/NT box comes with. All for my DoSposale.
As for your comment regarding "Real" virus writers, Hey chum. If it
infects, it's a virus. Their's no such thing as a "Fake" one. :p
sandbox? hmm.. I don't know what your fascination with sandboxes is, or
how that was even introduced; So I'll leave it alone.
your quite the fellow tho Nick, threatening me with pigs already and
it's not even 2pm yet. But you see tho Nick, the difference between you
and I.. The pigs can't do anything to me, cause I'm not doing anything
illegal. And heh, besides. We already know by the time they finish
their 23rd helping of Dunken Donuts; I'd be well on my way to some
other place. :) The real difference tho Nick, is I don't threaten. I
fully act on any "threats" you recieve from me. I consider your
previous post a "ok, write the virus, attack us, fuck with us, We want
you too. For I am Nick, here me stroke.". I'll take that as an accept
to the offer.
Hmm, I'm just curious; How many requests to make "hot monkey love" did
you recieve anyway? <g>
Regards,
Raid [SLAM]
http://www.coderz.net/Raid
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Raid Slam
<P...@ultimatechaos.org> wrote:
> Who granted you permission to speak for virus writers???
His right... er... No, I'll leave that alone. hehe
> Grow up Fitzgerald...We are here to stay,We will always be here
> and when we are not here there will always be replacements..
> I'm not going to speak for other authors but in the times Ive
> spent with RaiD and some of my fellows I can assure you he is highly
> thought of by many.When will you get used to the idea that all your
> foul mouthing will not
> make us go away or stop what we are doing??As to bubba....hahahah
> SEND EM ON..
Mis Fitzy (Hey Nick, nice "nick"name no? Suits you well? :)) seems to
suffer from incredible emotional troubles. Perhaps she's on the rag
again. Tis possible.
> PaX
Raid Slam
<ni...@virus-l.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> So, you have *never* given any representation of self-replicating
> code to another person, *ever*?
That wouldn't be any different then CARO if he did. Or one of you at
Virus Bulletin. (How did you get fired from there anyhow?)
> If that really is true of you, you are all but unique amongst
> virus writers. I seriously doubt it is true though...
Nick, You don't know nearly as much as I had originally thought you
did. You still haven't quiet gotten the concept that no virus writer is
the same as another virus writer. Even Sarah Gordon discovered (and
documented) this. I understand this *very simple* concept, and yet you
call me the ignorant one? Hmm... No, I think Nick, that you are the
ignorant one. Not ignorant in all things of course, but in enough
things.
> And even if it is, how do we know you will continue this almost
> 'monastic' life? Or is that you write such an uncreative
> viruses that none of your virus writing/VX buddies would be seen
> dead with your code?
For someone who doesn't want viruses to exist; Why present such an open
request to release one? Really Nick, your concept of putting out fires
is something to be desired. Most people do not put gasoline on a fire
they want to go out.
Raid Slam
<ni...@virus-l.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Omnivore <sun...@SPAMOFFpacbell.net> wrote:
> Nope -- it's just that you and your ilk have been too lame
> over the last decade or so to level any vaguely convincing
> argument to suggest my view needs adjusting. Through that
> time, countless cardboard cutouts have spewed the same
> dribble you have just spouted and you (or others) will go
> on to spout in this thread.
Hmm, if someone presented evidence that your view was in error; You'd
dismiss it anyway. Your akin to talking to a brick wall sometimes.
Only, you do talk back; and your slightly above a drunkard when you
respond. (I've seen drunkards who display a better usage of words.)
> It's not that I'm bigoted -- just that I hold the
> intellectual and moral highground over you, you are
> powerless to fix that as you are simply in the wrong and
> you know that but are too gutless to admit it.
Bah!
You hold *nothing* over me pompous asshole. intellectual (yea so much
so, that you got virus bulletin in a world of shit; I heard (not
confirmed, might not be true; makes sense tho) that the primary reason
you left was because of the trouble you caused for them, by using your
ego instead of your head. :)
I'm not gutless to admit/deny what I do. I have no problems taking you
or anyone else on. Your just a piece of dogshit that's stuck to my shoe.
A loudmouthed piece of Dogshit with very poor manners.
> Why was that? Because I am right that, like several
> generations of pro-virus people before you, your position
> is so lame that it cannot really even begin to justify its
> existence in a real debate so deflection to personalities
> is all you are left with?
erm? No Nick.
My position isn't lame. I enjoy doing what I do. Some would prefer that
I didn't; but it's not their choice to make. it's my choice. I'm not
"lame" for choosing to write little self replicating programs. Atleast
not anymore so lame then those scientists (who are likely, on your
"intellectual" scale; Way above you) who created the atomic bomb. (The
atomic bomb has no "beneficial" purpose.)
Essentially Nick,
Your comments are seriously lame, You insult everyone who dares present
a viewpoint unlike yours. You seem to think your some big shit or
something. Well, you have the shit part right anyways.
Raid Slam
Nicks "law" threats are getting boring aren't they? :)
I mean, they are funny; I admit. But he forgets, I'm not in the uk; his
legal system doesn't apply here.
Mis Fitz,
Please, stop inhaling so much crank; It's fucking up your head. Oh and
one more thing, Stop threatening me. I mean, If you could do anything
to me (legalwise) you already would have. Now then, Grow up and fuck
off obkaybee? :)
Larry Bridwell
DigitAl56K <a...@digital56k.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
news:38038be3...@news.free-online.net...
> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 23:53:29 -0500, Paul Schmehl
> <TINLC#15...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:47:42 -0700, "Omnivore"
> ><sun...@SPAMOFFpacbell.net>, eager to engage in discussion said:
> >
> >[snip]
> >>
> >> If someone gets shot let us go hang the nearest gun owner.
> >> If someone gets hung let us go drown the nearest person with a rope.
> >>
> >Every time someone gets a virus infection, let's go pummel the nearest
> >virus writer to death?
>
> Or do the same to the user who got infected by not keeping their av up
> to date - or not having any at all. Or maybe the av company for not
> detecting the virus. Or maybe the person who infected the computer. Or
> the person who sent the virus
Nope. If we're bound to pummel, let us go to the root. Pummel the creator.
When all the creators are gone or stop for fear of pummeling then:
1. user sill not need to keep av up to date (it will always be up to date -
no new ones!
2. av companies will be up to date - no new ones
3. IF there is an infection it will already be know. Remember, no new ones.
4. If one is sent, it will be know. No new ones.
You see, viruses do not write themselves. Virus writers write them. Don't
blame the infected, instead blame those who created the viruses.
"No virus writers, no viruses; no viruses, no infections. Quite simple
really.
Actually, I am not into pummeling myself and do not see the need, but can
understand the frustration and anger of those who have lost time, data, and
possibly use of their computers due to the creation of someone wanting to
demonstrate his/her coding abilities :-).
Larry
--
Larry Bridwell
Technology Program Manager, ICSA Labs.
"...but then, these are my thoughts and ICSA Labs just may not agree,
so give 'em a break!"
Randy Abrams
PaX <P...@ultimatechaos.org> wrote in message
news:7u2d8s$lh$1...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net...
> >>>>Another lame threat from Raid -- the virus writers that
> real virus writers despise...<<<<
>
>
>
we
> are not here there will always be replacements..
>
> I'm not going to speak for other authors but in the times Ive spent with
> RaiD and some of my fellows I can assure you he is highly thought of by
> many.When will you get used to the idea that all your foul mouthing will
not
> make us go away or stop what we are doing??As to bubba....hahahah SEND EM
> ON..
>
Some racists think highly of other racists. I choose not to associate with
these people and do not think highly of them. If you choose to think highly
of someone (like raid) who deliberately sabotages groups that help child
abuse victims, etc. it's your business. Don't expect people to think very
highly of you for making that choice, but it is your choice.
Regards,
Randy
PaX
Nicks "law" threats are getting boring aren't they? :)
I mean, they are funny; I admit. But he forgets, I'm not in the uk; his
legal system doesn't apply here.<<<<<<<
Got that right RaiD but then again i'm not so sure that Nicks idea of
"Legal System" applies anyware..as in most locations there is that little
point of "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" unlike Mr Fitzys idea of "Fuck
innocent hang em anyway"...
see ya soon...
PaX0r
Frédéric Bonroy
> I'm not going to speak for other authors but in the times Ive spent with
> RaiD and some of my fellows I can assure you he is highly thought of by
> many.
And why?
PaX
creator.
When all the creators are gone or stop for fear of pummeling then:<<<<
Yup I agree totally...X86 sucks ,Shoot Gates ,,,=]
huh...oh sorry wrong creator...
Nice thought Larry a little misguided but well intentioned..=]
Best wishes PaX
PaX
with
these people and do not think highly of them. If you choose to think highly
of someone (like raid) who deliberately sabotages groups that help child
abuse victims, etc. it's your business. Don't expect people to think very
highly of you for making that choice, but it is your choice.<<<
Randy,
Maybe I should clarify...
I don't make any comment as to my opinions of any of RaiDs actions..I was
stating my opinion of him as a friend and fellow programmer.I can only
comment on how people are when they deal with me..as I have said before RaiD
has always been helpful and ready with information when I have asked for his
help and for this I am grateful.
It's the rank generalisations made by Fitzy that just annoy me, such ill
informed self opinionated bullshit I have a real problem deciphering.
My point about being Dalton/PaX was an attempt to show that just because I
am a virus writer does not by deffault make me Evil.I find it strange that a
person can Hate somebody they have never met or spoken too outside of a
newsgroup just because they have an unusual interest...I can understand
Hating what I do but not Hating me as a person because of it.My comparrison
was with Winblows...I get ticked off at Windows bugs but that does not mean
I should Hate Mr Gates because of his products minor faults..or by
association hate you because you work for Microsoft.I would think that it
would be far more useful for me to ASK you for an informed opinion/solution
for my windows/microsoft problems.
This is the point I was trying to raise before Mr Personality bypass lost
the plot AGAIN..=]
Best Wishes PaX [Dalton]
Larry Bridwell
news:0a0133f8...@usw-ex0101-002.remarq.com...
> In article <01bf1570$3538d260$f5c9a7cb@mobilenick>, "Nick FitzGerald"
> <ni...@virus-l.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Omnivore <sun...@SPAMOFFpacbell.net> wrote:
[No cuts purposefully. Forgive the length]
>
> > Nope -- it's just that you and your ilk have been too lame
> > over the last decade or so to level any vaguely convincing
> > argument to suggest my view needs adjusting. Through that
> > time, countless cardboard cutouts have spewed the same
> > dribble you have just spouted and you (or others) will go
> > on to spout in this thread.
No debate in this thread either, I am afraid.
>
> Hmm, if someone presented evidence that your view was in error; You'd
> dismiss it anyway. Your akin to talking to a brick wall sometimes.
Why not at least try and see if there is real discourse or not. So far Nick
has asked and no one has TRIED.
> Only, you do talk back; and your slightly above a drunkard when you
> respond. (I've seen drunkards who display a better usage of words.)
>
Personal attack, non-respnsive.
>
> > It's not that I'm bigoted -- just that I hold the
> > intellectual and moral highground over you, you are
> > powerless to fix that as you are simply in the wrong and
> > you know that but are too gutless to admit it.
>
Nick's opinion. Deserves a response
> Bah!
Probably desrves better than that :-).
>
> You hold *nothing* over me pompous asshole.
Personal attack
intellectual (yea so much
> so, that you got virus bulletin in a world of shit; I heard (not
> confirmed, might not be true; makes sense tho) that the primary reason
> you left was because of the trouble you caused for them, by using your
> ego instead of your head. :)
Should offer proof or not spread a rumor. If no proof then a red herring to
evade answering the real questions.
>
> I'm not gutless to admit/deny what I do.
Real name, real employer please. If not you are not really admitting
anything.
> I have no problems taking you
> or anyone else on. Your just a piece of dogshit that's stuck to my shoe.
> A loudmouthed piece of Dogshit with very poor manners.
Personal attack. No discourse or disbutation of the origianl question. In
this thread, your manners seem to be lacking somewhat. No attack. An
objective (I hope) opinion based on this thread.
>
> > Why was that? Because I am right that, like several
> > generations of pro-virus people before you, your position
> > is so lame that it cannot really even begin to justify its
> > existence in a real debate so deflection to personalities
> > is all you are left with?
Another call for open debate.
>
> erm? No Nick.
>
> My position isn't lame. I enjoy doing what I do. Some would prefer that
> I didn't; but it's not their choice to make. it's my choice. I'm not
> "lame" for choosing to write little self replicating programs.
Good that you enjoy it. Does not answer the orignal question.
> Atleast
> not anymore so lame then those scientists (who are likely, on your
> "intellectual" scale; Way above you) who created the atomic bomb. (The
> atomic bomb has no "beneficial" purpose.)
Another red herring in an attempt to evade.
>
> Essentially Nick,
>
> Your comments are seriously lame,
His call for an open debate is still not answered. While I am not a real
expert in debate, writing viruses, or creating AV products, it would appear
that those on the virus writing/VX side are those with the lame arguments
(at least in tis thread). Why not just come forward with an open debate.
If Nick resorts to personal attacks (as you did), name calling (as you
have), or runs for cover then you win and can prove it. If not, at least
you have the opportunity to have your thoughts heard and considered in a
rational manner.
> You insult everyone who dares present
> a viewpoint unlike yours.
Not in this thread.
> You seem to think your some big shit or
> something.
Don't think I saw that claim.
> Well, you have the shit part right anyways.
Personal attacks should be ignored in a real debate.
Let's have the open debate or drop the thread!
Raid Slam
<ran...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> If you choose to
> think highly of someone (like raid) who deliberately sabotages groups
> that help child abuse victims, etc. it's your business. Don't expect
> people to think very highly of you for making that choice, but it is
> your choice.
I'll thank you not to compare me to people like that, asshole.
Arseman,
I don't sabotage any groups or any person. Your personal differences
with me should remain out of your snide little comments to other
posters. Atleast act like you have some manners Arse.
Randy Abrams
> >>>>>Some racists think highly of other racists. I choose not to associate
> with
highly
> of someone (like raid) who deliberately sabotages groups that help child
> abuse victims, etc. it's your business. Don't expect people to think very
> highly of you for making that choice, but it is your choice.<<<
>
> Maybe I should clarify...
>
> I don't make any comment as to my opinions of any of RaiDs actions..I was
> stating my opinion of him as a friend and fellow programmer.I can only
> comment on how people are when they deal with me..as I have said before
RaiD
> has always been helpful and ready with information when I have asked for
his
> help and for this I am grateful.
Fine, I try to choose friends who do not try to harm other people. You
obviously have a different criteria. It's amazing to me that you would find
Nick's words objectionable, but have no problem supporting a person who
delights in hurting innocent people. I really don't think it would matter to
you if Raid raped children as long as he can help you write a virus. Isn't
this true? If not where do you draw the line? How reprehensible must a
person be before you wouldn't call them a friend? If a nazi helps you write
a virus, does that make him your friend? Why is it you are so afraid to come
out and publicly comment on Raids actions? Why do you lack the courage to
say that Raid's actions are morally corrupt?
Your positive statements of a virus writer who openly enjoys attacking
charitable organizations betray your claims to not like spreaders.
I'll let you in on a little secret. Nick's words are not in the same league
as Raids actions. It's time you grow a spine and call it like it is.
Omnivore
Randy Abrams wrote in message ...
>
>Omnivore <sun...@SPAMOFFpacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:rCQM3.430$ju5....@typhoon01.swbell.net...
>>
><snip>
>> Interesting how your post express that you missed the persons point
>> entirely and that you seem to think in either-or terms of who may or may
>not
>> be responsible for this or that.
>> I don't think someone is necessarily excusing the behavior of someone
>> when someone else is egging them on to do what they claim to not want
>done.
>
>
>I didn't miss Spanska's point at all. I just do not buy into his argument
>that because Nick expressed dislike of virus writers, he is to blame for a
>virus writer writing a virus.
I would not buy into that either unless someone was really able to piss
someone off to the point they would do soemthing they would nto toherwise
do.
>
>> Is it illegal to leave your keys in your car unattended where you
>live?
>
>Beats me? But if you're headed toward saying that it is less than 100% the
>fault of a thief for stealing if the target is easy, I won't buy that
>argument either.
The thief is 100% responsible for being a thief I would suppose. - Or
mostly so anyway. Who knows what values he got raised with.
Someone who left their keyes in the ar is 100% responsible in relation
to stupid or careless.
Have you ever stolen anything? Was it yeilding to a temptation?
Through carelessness, ignorance or malicious intent is one not
responsible for presenting others with temptation?
Do you condemn all others who do not live to your standards of strong
moral character? Is there anyone who looks down on you for not living to
their own standards?
I'm really more amused by that other fellow who spits so much vitriol.
Maybe I ought to stick to examining his rants. Ought not turn too much of
the group to some debate of eithics I suppose.
Just because you do not buy an argument does not mean it is without
merit. But I guess you like dealing in 100% this or 100% that?
>
>Regards,
>
>Randy
>--
Omnivore
PaX wrote in message <7u2dc2$m5$1...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net>...
Ha ha - I can only imagine that the folks who would be the most
malicious in doing what he hates so much would be even more amused by him
than I am. He cheers them up with his carrying on and claims he is winner. I
have seen that same framework in a number of newsgroups by folks spewing
thier hate on a number of topics that folks find to hate anyone who does not
agree with them. Mostly I would concede their winning on account of staying
power. I get bored with the long rants and they end with the last word most
often.
Oh well, I ought to cut it out here I suppose. I gather it is a nuisance
to some folks that have to pay for their online time. - And the various
sides of the issue are never going to convince one another of anything
anyway.
>
Randy Abrams
> > think highly of someone (like raid) who deliberately sabotages groups
> > that help child abuse victims, etc. it's your business. Don't expect
> > people to think very highly of you for making that choice, but it is
> > your choice.
>
Well, if you didn't deliberatley go around trying to invade other peoples
privacy and destroy their data, I wouldn't compare you to other worthless
scum. The fact is that you enjoy harming people. If you don't want to be
compared to other people like that, then chage.
>
> Arseman,
>
> I don't sabotage any groups or any person. Your personal differences
> with me should remain out of your snide little comments to other
> posters. Atleast act like you have some manners Arse.
>
You deliberately spread viruses and encourage the spread of them. You
deliberately do not make the slightest attempt to prevent them from
infecting any groups or persons. Have you sent out a disinfection program
for your viruses to groups that help child abuse victims, or fight racism,
or provide meals to homeless people? Have you lifted a finger to minimize
the impact of your viruses? No, you gleefully giggle when ever someone gets
infected and can't get to their data. It would make you grin to learn that
someone prosecuting a child molester couldn't get to their data because of
your virus now, wouldn't it. Admit it, it's what you live for. Unable to
write a program anyone would choose to run, or do anything useful, you
decided to just be a useless twerp and try to wreak havoc on anyone who does
anything useful
You're a loser Raid. I'm surprised you even could spell manners, it's
nothing you have any knowledge of.
Get lost clown.
Omnivore
Randy Abrams wrote in message ...
>
>news:7u2iju$apg$1...@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net...
>> >>>>>Some racists think highly of other racists. I choose not to
associate
>> with
>highly
>> of someone (like raid) who deliberately sabotages groups that help child
>> abuse victims, etc. it's your business. Don't expect people to think very
>> highly of you for making that choice, but it is your choice.<<<
>>
I dunno - If Raid had some knowledge that would be of use to me and he
was one to rape children I suppose I would wish him to impart the knowledge
to me from prison.
I fine it a bit of amazing/amusing when someone basically says, "You are
scum and I hate you and I want you to accept my point of view." - Hell of a
way to open a channel of communication. ;-)
PaX
obviously have a different criteria. It's amazing to me that you would find
Nick's words objectionable, but have no problem supporting a person who
delights in hurting innocent people. I really don't think it would matter to
you if Raid raped children as long as he can help you write a virus. Isn't
this true? If not where do you draw the line? How reprehensible must a
person be before you wouldn't call them a friend? If a nazi helps you write
a virus, does that make him your friend? Why is it you are so afraid to come
out and publicly comment on Raids actions? Why do you lack the courage to
say that Raid's actions are morally corrupt?<<<<<
It's not that I have a different criteria Randy it's that I can only comment
on a persons actions towards me.
>>>I really don't think it would matter to
you if Raid raped children as long as he can help you write a virus<<<<
Hey come on Randy thats a cheap shot..!!!
As to a public comment on RaiDs "alledged" actions...it's not something I
partake of personally but I am not RaiD so his reasoning may well be
different to mine.As I have stated many times Virus Writers are individuals
and we cannot be held responsible for each others actions.(other than
allowing somebody to spread one of our own creations).
>>>If a nazi helps you write
a virus, does that make him your friend? <<<<<
I understand that the National Socialist Party is a legal party in many
countries..not that I support in ANY way their doctorine ..but never the
less ..still legal.So legally I have to respect their right to exist and
express their views so long as I'm not expected to follow their
lead.Politics is not a subject that ever really arrises in VX channels so I
have not really got any idea of what party any Virus Writer is.I of course
have my own political opinion but that is mine and mine alone and not really
for public consumption.
By way of example I offer the following...
In the recent conflict one of the VXers we all know very well was living in
Yugoslavia.The subject of the conflict over there never really was discussed
other than when any one of us enquired about the welfare of our
friend.Nobody asked if he was Serb or Croat or what party he supported only
that he and his family were safe from our own countries bombs.
As Sara Gordon pointed out some time ago...Yes I accept that to some degree
we do display somewhat Amoral attitudes(Some more than others)..for what
reason I honestly don't know...
Oh the final point is for Nick....
you asked for my number...
+44 07931 149070....if it's not me that answers the phone then just ask for
Dalton..=]
Best wishes PaX
Raid Slam
<sun...@SPAMOFFpacbell.net> wrote:
> >you if Raid raped children as long as he can help you write a
> virus. Isn't
Randy,
Don't ever let me catch you in real life. I don't take kindly to being
compared to a child molester. You give the definition to cocksucker a
whole new meaning. You really ARE a cocksucker, and your pretty fucked
up thinking I'd have ANYTHING whatsoever to do with raping or otherwise
hurting children. I don't like kids, But I sure as hell don't go out of
my way to harm them. And I damn sure don't go around molesting anybody
either.
> courage to
> >say that Raid's actions are morally corrupt?
Who are you to decide what is Morally right or Morally wrong for me to
do? You are nobody! Your decisions mean jack fucking shit to me.
> I dunno - If Raid had some knowledge that would be of use to
> me and he was one to rape children I suppose I would wish him to >
impart the knowledge to me from prison.
To set the record Straight, I don't rape children, and I don't attack
charitable organizations either. I don't know how the fuck either of
those has even gotten into this conversation; Perhaps it's to serve as
an example of just how low some will go on usenet?
> I fine it a bit of amazing/amusing when someone basically
> says, "You are scum and I hate you and I want you to accept my point
> of view." - Hell of a way to open a channel of communication. ;-)
I find this entire newsgroup rather humorous at times. And rather sick
at other times.
Randy, You've got some serious problems even thinking about child
molestation; Bad childhood maybe?
Omnivore, Sorry for responding to your post; Randy's hasn't directly
shown up yet.
Greg Pruitt
Greg Pruitt
Raid Slam
<ran...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Well, if you didn't deliberatley go around trying to invade other
> peoples privacy and destroy their data, I wouldn't compare you to >
other worthless scum. The fact is that you enjoy harming people. If
> you don't want to be compared to other people like that, then chage.
Arseman,
I don't invade peoples privacy; They have to download and execute the
virus, it's hardly automatic. And I don't normally destroy anyones
"data" either. In fact, Termites second payload doesn't actually
destroy anything. It renames the root entries to high ascii; Sure, it's
tedious to rename them back, But no data is lost. If you somehow
mistook that for wiping a hard disk (Kim Neely, Symantec, Mcafee all
did) then I'd say it's technical error on your part.
Either way,
You have no business even trying to compare me to some sick fucker
who'd rape/molest a child. If you had said such shit to my face, You'd
be out cold withen seconds. (Or dead).
> You deliberately spread viruses and encourage the spread of them.
> You deliberately do not make the slightest attempt to prevent them >
from infecting any groups or persons. Have you sent out a disinfection
> program for your viruses to groups that help child abuse victims, or
> fight racism, or provide meals to homeless people? Have you lifted a
> finger to minimize the impact of your viruses? No, you gleefully >
giggle when ever someone gets infected and can't get to their data.
I do not spread them; A website doesn't automatically send whats on it
to a computer, unless that computer has requested the information.
Please get your head out of your ass, Thank You.
I've never been informed any of those groups were ever infected with
one of my viruses; So just how am I supposed to send them a
disinfector? Arseman, you sure are an idiot sometimes.
I've helped people to remove some of my viruses before Yes. And I don't
"gleefully giggle" at them, I laugh at the "state of the art in
antivirus technology" when it fails right before their eyes. The two
are not the same.
> It would make you grin to learn that someone prosecuting a child >
molester couldn't get to their data because of your virus now, >
wouldn't it. Admit it, it's what you live for.
As I've been trying to explain to your dense fucking brain matter, No I
would not be grinning; I'd be contacting the prosecuter (anonymously)
with instructions for removing it and recovering his/her data. I do NOT
like/tolerate childmolestors; You are pushing a very fine line with me
on this topic Arseman.
> Unable to write a program anyone would choose to run, or do anything
> useful, you decided to just be a useless twerp and try to wreak havoc
> on anyone who does anything useful
Considering you don't know what software I've written for the
commercial/shareware/freeware/private government markets, Your hardly
in a position to comment on it, or the reason I develop viruses.
> You're a loser Raid. I'm surprised you even could spell manners,
> it's nothing you have any knowledge of.
> Get lost clown.
Arseman,
The only real losers here are the users who believe your nonsense, and
pay good money for shitty software. But you'd know, You work for
someone who specializes in a "good fuck" to the users. Perhaps that's
where you came up with the child molestation shit, maybe your having
flashbacks?
PaX
Greg Pruitt<<<<
where the F**K did that come from????
PaX
Randy Abrams
<snip>
> It's not that I have a different criteria Randy it's that I can only
comment
> on a persons actions towards me.
I disagree. I think it is perfectly legitimate to comment on a person's
statements as well. Raid's statements have been to extoll people to spread
his virus. He has advocated shutting down BBS's with his virus. Not just say
porno BBS's, any BBS.
> >>>I really don't think it would matter to
> you if Raid raped children as long as he can help you write a virus<<<<
>
> Hey come on Randy thats a cheap shot..!!!
Is it? I'm not saying , or implying that your advocate such activities. The
point is that Raid is openly in favor of harassing innocent people and you
speak kindly of such a scumbag. So, who low do they go before you stand up
and say this isn't the type of person I wish to be associated with?
> As to a public comment on RaiDs "alledged" actions...it's not something I
> partake of personally but I am not RaiD so his reasoning may well be
> different to mine.As I have stated many times Virus Writers are
individuals
> and we cannot be held responsible for each others actions.(other than
> allowing somebody to spread one of our own creations).
I'm not talking alleged actions. I'm talking about his own writings. Go
through his NFO files in his virus packages and you'll see what he has
written. You can't go back through his dejanews posts because the little
coward has pulled most of those. It's no secret that Raid is anti-social
scum.
I'm not holding you accountable for Raids actions. I am holding you
accountable for publically supporting someone who stands for harassing
people, invading people's privacy, and destroying their data.
> >>>If a nazi helps you write
> a virus, does that make him your friend? <<<<<
>
> I understand that the National Socialist Party is a legal party in many
> countries..not that I support in ANY way their doctorine ..but never the
> less ..still legal.So legally I have to respect their right to exist and
> express their views so long as I'm not expected to follow their
> lead.Politics is not a subject that ever really arrises in VX channels so
I
> have not really got any idea of what party any Virus Writer is.I of course
> have my own political opinion but that is mine and mine alone and not
really
> for public consumption.
Lengthy, but not an answer :)
> By way of example I offer the following...
>
> In the recent conflict one of the VXers we all know very well was living
in
> Yugoslavia.The subject of the conflict over there never really was
discussed
> other than when any one of us enquired about the welfare of our
> friend.Nobody asked if he was Serb or Croat or what party he supported
only
> that he and his family were safe from our own countries bombs.
> As Sara Gordon pointed out some time ago...Yes I accept that to some
degree
> we do display somewhat Amoral attitudes(Some more than others)..for what
> reason I honestly don't know...
>
Ah, but with Raid, you don't have to ask. He has written what he believes.
He believes in infecting newbies because he believes he has the right to
teach them a lesson in what ever manner he sees fit. He believes that it is
right for him to invade other people's computers. He believe others should
do so as well. Raid has written the words himself. I'm not asking you to
condemn Raid for what I believe about him, look at what he has written.
You'll quickly see him for what he is. The fact that he helped you with some
code does not make him a decent person.
Regards,
Randy
Randy Abrams
Omnivore <sun...@SPAMOFFpacbell.net> wrote in message
>
<snip>
> I dunno - If Raid had some knowledge that would be of use to me and he
> was one to rape children I suppose I would wish him to impart the
knowledge
> to me from prison.
are
> scum and I hate you and I want you to accept my point of view." - Hell of
a
> way to open a channel of communication. ;-)
>
with raid. He's too stoned to remember what he wrote in his last message,
much the less to be able to maintain a dialog. Raid is scum, and he's not
going to accept anyone's point of view. I'll save reasonable discussions for
PaX and others who are not anti-social.
Regards,
Randy
--
Randy Abrams
Raid Slam <soho20N...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <kc5N3.215$M12....@typhoon01.swbell.net>, "Omnivore"
> <sun...@SPAMOFFpacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Randy,
>
> Don't ever let me catch you in real life. I don't take kindly to being
> compared to a child molester.
There was no comparison. That was an IF statement. IF you had a vocabulary,
THEN you'd know what a comparison is. An alleged programmer who doesn't
understand the word "if". This is rich.
> You give the definition to cocksucker a
> whole new meaning. You really ARE a cocksucker, and your pretty fucked
> up thinking I'd have ANYTHING whatsoever to do with raping or otherwise
> hurting children. I don't like kids, But I sure as hell don't go out of
> my way to harm them. And I damn sure don't go around molesting anybody
> either.
That's where you are wrong. I don't think you go around raping children, but
you deliberatly harm other peoples data and encourage people to infect
everything in sight. It doesn't matter to you that organizations who try to
help children get infected with viruses. You supply the ammo and are the
cheer leader. Yes, you do harm children, as well as others when you
deliberatly create weapons to interefere with the work of those who would
help them. And yes, you do molest people. If you have a dictionary look up
the definition. It doesn't apply exclusively to sexual actions.
> > courage to say that Raid's actions are morally corrupt?
>
> Who are you to decide what is Morally right or Morally wrong for me to
> do? You are nobody! Your decisions mean jack fucking shit to me.
I'm me. I had no idea my decisions meant that much to you.
<snip>
> Perhaps it's to serve as an example of just how low some will go on
usenet?
We know how low some will go. We've seen your .NFOs.
> Randy, You've got some serious problems even thinking about child
> molestation; Bad childhood maybe?
Ah, so you're of the school of thought that if you ignore a problem it will
go away. A brilliant problem solver aren't you.
Raid, you are pathetically easy to toy with. All I have to do is type a word
and you'll twist it into things I never said. Knowing my disdain for you,
you usually insult yourself for me!
I suppose I should leave you alone before you get so pissed you go out and
attack other people.
Cheers!
Randy
Greg Pruitt
Greg Pruitt
Randy Abrams
> I don't invade peoples privacy; They have to download and execute the
> virus, it's hardly automatic.
You design your code to "hide" so they won't know it's there when they
attempt to download something else. Play with the semantics all you want,
you invade people's privacy.
> And I don't normally destroy anyones
> "data" either. In fact, Termites second payload doesn't actually
> destroy anything. It renames the root entries to high ascii; Sure, it's
Normally? You abnormally do it? Anyway, the exact term is pretty irrelevant.
You make it so people can't get at their data when they want or need to.
> Either way,
> You have no business even trying to compare me to some sick fucker
> who'd rape/molest a child. If you had said such shit to my face, You'd
> be out cold withen seconds. (Or dead).
Let's see if I have this striaght. It's ok for you to screw with other
people's data, but words are where you draw the line.
<snip>
> I do not spread them; A website doesn't automatically send whats on it
> to a computer, unless that computer has requested the information.
> Please get your head out of your ass, Thank You.
You'd be the expert on cranial locations. Yes, you spread them. You
deliberately place them in such a manner that you know they will be spread.
It's all the same.
> I've never been informed any of those groups were ever infected with
> one of my viruses; So just how am I supposed to send them a
> disinfector? Arseman, you sure are an idiot sometimes.
I just can't believe you can be so close and still not see it. EXACTLY, you
don't know who is going to get infected. So, why not send them all
instructions so that if they do get infected they don't have to wait until
it is convenient for you to send them instructions? This is such an easy
concept. If you don't think that charitable gorups should be harmed by your
viruses, incoulate them, or don't release your viruses. how can you be so
blind?
> I've helped people to remove some of my viruses before Yes. And I don't
> "gleefully giggle" at them, I laugh at the "state of the art in
> antivirus technology" when it fails right before their eyes. The two
> are not the same.
You are right. The stae of anti-virus technology didn't infect the PC's and
you're too incompetent to further the state of anti-virus technology.
> > It would make you grin to learn that someone prosecuting a child >
> molester couldn't get to their data because of your virus now, >
> wouldn't it. Admit it, it's what you live for.
>
> As I've been trying to explain to your dense fucking brain matter, No I
> would not be grinning; I'd be contacting the prosecuter (anonymously)
> with instructions for removing it and recovering his/her data. I do NOT
> like/tolerate childmolestors; You are pushing a very fine line with me
> on this topic Arseman.
I'm pushing a fine line? You are the one making the scenario possible. If
you find it reprehensible the do something about it. There's no one in the
world preventing you from anonomously sending disinfection routines to
prosecutors who put away such scum bags, yet you seem perfectly content to
wait until after the damage is done to do anything. If my words are pushing
fine line, your actions ran passed the line a long time ago.
<snip>
> Considering you don't know what software I've written for the
> commercial/shareware/freeware/private government markets, Your hardly
> in a position to comment on it, or the reason I develop viruses.
Actually, you've written about why you write viruses. I certainly can
comment on that.
<snip>
Regards,
Raid Slam
<ran...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I disagree. I think it is perfectly legitimate to comment on a
> person's statements as well. Raid's statements have been to extoll >
> people to spread his virus. He has advocated shutting down BBS's with
> his virus. Not just say porno BBS's, any BBS.
Arseman (that's your newly assigned name, You haven't got the respect
from me to be called by your real name)
Yes, I've advocated shutting down bbses, Although I was never specific
about the type I had shutdown. But, for the 3rd time today, Your
ASSuming they were "any BBS."; They weren't.
> Is it? I'm not saying , or implying that your advocate such
> activities.
Arseman,
A child molestor is a far worse person then a virus writer. To even try
to link the two, makes for a sick motherfucker; ie: you.
> The point is that Raid is openly in favor of harassing innocent people
> and you speak kindly of such a scumbag. So, who low do they go before
> you stand up and say this isn't the type of person I wish to be >
associated with?
Innocent people? Don't make me laugh; Nobodies "innocent". I see his
high opinion of me offends you. Why is this Arseman?
> I'm not talking alleged actions. I'm talking about his own
> writings. Go through his NFO files in his virus packages and you'll >
see what he has written.
Yes, the .NFO files detail what the virus is, what it will do, and it's
release date. But umm, going to the website would tell you that
information before you downloaded it. Idiot.
> You can't go back through his dejanews posts because the
> little coward has pulled most of those. It's no secret that Raid is
> anti-social scum.
This "little-coward" has NOT EVER pulled anything from dejanews. I
began using "x-no-archive: Yes" in my newsreader. (I'm not using my
news reader now, and I haven't been recently. So these messages are
trackable in dejanews.) Arseman, If your going to dig up trash on me;
Atleast stick to non-bullshit.
Arseman, Stop posting about me; You don't know me. And your lieing at
this point. I hate liers.
> Ah, but with Raid, you don't have to ask. He has written what he
> believes.
You've never asked me what I believe Arseman, Your ASSuming again.
> He believes in infecting newbies because he believes he has the
> right to teach them a lesson in what ever manner he sees fit. He >
believes that it is right for him to invade other people's computers. >
He believe others should do so as well.
I don't recall giving you permission to speak for me either. You don't
represent me at all.
> The fact that he helped you with some code does not make him a decent
> person.
The fact that I've written a few viruses doesn't mean I'm not a decent
person either. You seem to have that confused tho.
By your terminology, I should hate you for the shitty code Microsoft
has released. and by this, Your not a decent person for working for
them. See how it doesn't fly so well, homer?
Pierre Vandevenne
>Arseman (that's your newly assigned name, You haven't got the respect
>from me to be called by your real name)
At this points, the public thinks you have run short of arguments and have
been rethorically blasted. Of course, the public is stupid, but still....
Pierre
---
Pierre Vandevenne
www.datarescue.com, home of the IDA Pro Disassembler
kurt wismer
> In article <01bf1572$dd311660$f5c9a7cb@mobilenick>, "Nick FitzGerald"
> <ni...@virus-l.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> Your a prime example of hate for fellow man. You hate (for life) anyone
"cough", "choke", "snicker"..
you are a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black mr. 'so long
as i draw breath i shall cause harm'...
--
"read my writing on the wall
no one's here to catch me when i fall
if ignorance is bliss
then knock the smile off my face"
Omnivore
Randy Abrams wrote in message ...
>
>news:kc5N3.215$M12....@typhoon01.swbell.net...
>>
><snip>
>> I dunno - If Raid had some knowledge that would be of use to me and
he
>> was one to rape children I suppose I would wish him to impart the
>knowledge
>> to me from prison.
>> I fine it a bit of amazing/amusing when someone basically says, "You
>are
>> scum and I hate you and I want you to accept my point of view." - Hell of
>a
>> way to open a channel of communication. ;-)
>>
>You're pretty new here. I'm not trying to open up a channel of
communication
>with raid. He's too stoned to remember what he wrote in his last message,
>much the less to be able to maintain a dialog. Raid is scum, and he's not
>going to accept anyone's point of view. I'll save reasonable discussions
for
>PaX and others who are not anti-social.
>
>Regards,
>
>Randy
I haven't paid good attention. Are you one of the ones who has been
putting much energy into arguing with him and bitching about him?
Omnivore
DigitAl56K
>fellow
>> posted awhile back. But I see your views as rather absolutist and
>bigoted.
>
>Nope -- it's just that you and your ilk have been too lame
>over the last decade or so to level any vaguely convincing
>argument to suggest my view needs adjusting. Through that
>time, countless cardboard cutouts have spewed the same
>dribble you have just spouted and you (or others) will go
>on to spout in this thread.
>
>intellectual and moral highground over you, you are
>powerless to fix that as you are simply in the wrong and
>continuing lameness of those who fail to see this, would
>amuse me, were it not so miserably sad that so many
>(reputedly) clever youngsters seem destined to repeat the
>mistakes of their virus writing/VX forerunners.
It is your view that you hold moral highground over VXers. I would
suggest that any VXer who does not malicously spread their work, such
as Pax for example, has just as good morals as anyone, if not more for
being responsible with their work in a community which as a whole has
a bad reputation.
>*If* you attended to my earlier posts in this thread, you
>might have actually noticed that I presented several rather
>interesting ('intellectual' even) claims about the
>differences between 'security exploits' and 'viruses', and
>why using the existence of the former to justify writing
>thelatter was psuedo-intellectual wanking. Of course, you
>and your pro-virus buddies immediately took up an ad
>hominem attack on me instead of engaging my claims.
Viruses rely upon security exploits to spread. Whether this is a bug
in the software used, or even users running suspect e-mail
attachments, it is still a security problem.
-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-
Visit the DigitAl56K Website
http://www.digital56k.free-online.co.uk
Get AVDisk v3 for F-Prot (Software section)
-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-
DigitAl56K
Next time windows crashes I'll get to pummel Bill Gates...
On second thoughts I would probably be pummeled by several security
guards first... :)
>Nope. If we're bound to pummel, let us go to the root. Pummel the creator.
>When all the creators are gone or stop for fear of pummeling then:
>
>1. user sill not need to keep av up to date (it will always be up to date -
>no new ones!
>2. av companies will be up to date - no new ones
>3. IF there is an infection it will already be know. Remember, no new ones.
>4. If one is sent, it will be know. No new ones.
>
>You see, viruses do not write themselves. Virus writers write them. Don't
>blame the infected, instead blame those who created the viruses.
>
>"No virus writers, no viruses; no viruses, no infections. Quite simple
>really.
>
>Actually, I am not into pummeling myself and do not see the need, but can
>understand the frustration and anger of those who have lost time, data, and
>possibly use of their computers due to the creation of someone wanting to
>demonstrate his/her coding abilities :-).
DigitAl56K
whole its getting a little more then boring to find that every time AV
and VX disagree on something it very quickly rises to cheap attacks
and name calling.
Ok its bound to happen but some threads just lose the plot completely.
Larry Bridwell
news:380514e9...@news.free-online.net...
> I'm not getting at either side, or any one person here - but as a
> whole its getting a little more then boring to find that every time AV
> and VX disagree on something it very quickly rises to cheap attacks
> and name calling.
Oh my gosh! We do finally agree on something! As stated ina an ealier post
(somewhat differently), I really would like to see both sides of the issue
stop with the name calling and raching for the highly charged analogies
(that generally don't even equate) - guns, killing, rape, etc. and just have
a real open discussion.
Okay, so I am living in a dreamland! :-)
Larry
Randy Abrams
Raid Slam <soho20N...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> Arseman (that's your newly assigned name, You haven't got the respect
> from me to be called by your real name)
Oh dear. I'm depressed now.
> Yes, I've advocated shutting down bbses, Although I was never specific
> about the type I had shutdown. But, for the 3rd time today, Your
> ASSuming they were "any BBS."; They weren't.
Exactly. You put in your NFO, and I quote "By all means, use whatever
methods you know/can to spread this virus into
as many unsuspecting users as possible. If it means taking a network offline
fine by me. A local BBS will provide some entertainment :)"
You obviously don't care what the purpose of the BBS or network is.
> A child molestor is a far worse person then a virus writer. To even try
> to link the two, makes for a sick motherfucker; ie: you.
I never said you were a child molester, or as bad as one. You ASSumed that
it was what I meant. No, I think you only get in the way of people who would
try to stop child molesters. Your NFO indicates that you want your viruses
spread into "as many unsuspecting users as possible". That includes people
trying to do really good things, like put away the people you claim to hate.
<snip>
> Innocent people? Don't make me laugh; Nobodies "innocent". I see his
> high opinion of me offends you. Why is this Arseman?
It's inconsistant with everything else he says he stands for, MR. IC (yes,
you are the Internet Chihuahua)
> Yes, the .NFO files detail what the virus is, what it will do, and it's
> release date. But umm, going to the website would tell you that
> information before you downloaded it. Idiot.
You are obviously so stoned you forgot the other stuff you have put in these
things. You certainly are showing yourself to be quite the idiot when you
consistantly lie and make it so easy to prove you wrong.
> This "little-coward" has NOT EVER pulled anything from dejanews. I
> began using "x-no-archive: Yes" in my newsreader. (I'm not using my
> news reader now, and I haven't been recently. So these messages are
> trackable in dejanews.) Arseman, If your going to dig up trash on me;
> Atleast stick to non-bullshit.
Yeah, sure, those old posts just ran away right after Melissa broke loose.
> Arseman, Stop posting about me; You don't know me. And your lieing at
> this point. I hate liers.
Hey, you've got the right to write viruses, I've got the right to post about
you. Oh, that's right, the IC only believes that he has rights and no one
else does. If you hate people who lie, it goes a long, long way toward
explaining your low self-esteem.
> > Ah, but with Raid, you don't have to ask. He has written what he
> > believes.
>
> You've never asked me what I believe Arseman, Your ASSuming again.
I don't have to ask you what you believe when you post it for all to see.
Perhaps I assumed that you said what you meant. My mistake.
<snip>
> I don't recall giving you permission to speak for me either. You don't
I don't recall asking.
> The fact that I've written a few viruses doesn't mean I'm not a decent
> person either. You seem to have that confused tho.
Nope, I haven't confused that. It wasn't that you made viruses that lead me
to believe you aren't a decent person. It is because you advocate infecting
unsuspecting users. It's also because of your self-righteous attitude as
expressed here and in your NFO's. contrary to your twisted belief system, it
is not your right to teach unsuspecting users a lesson by invading their PC
with your junk code. Of course it's also because you lack the decency to
keep out of the way of organizations that help people.
> By your terminology, I should hate you for the shitty code Microsoft
> has released. and by this, Your not a decent person for working for
> them. See how it doesn't fly so well, homer?
If it wasn't for Microsoft you would have no attack against me at all. You
have never been able to attack me for what I've done as I have you. You are
clearly quite confused by my terminology as I have never said anything that
would lead to your conclusion. The fact is that you have attacked me for
working at Microsoft because that's the only thread you have.
Now, when you're done yappily barking at the big dogs from behind your safe
little fence, go get some kibbles. You probably have a serious case of the
munchies by now. See ya later Internet Chihuahua, bark at a Doberman for me
!!!
Regards,
Randy
PS, did you ever let that poor little sheep, Data, go?
Omnivore
Larry Bridwell wrote in message <7u36hc$qvn$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>...
>DigitAl56K <a...@digital56k.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:380514e9...@news.free-online.net...
>> I'm not getting at either side, or any one person here - but as a
>> whole its getting a little more then boring to find that every time AV
>> and VX disagree on something it very quickly rises to cheap attacks
>> and name calling.
>
>Oh my gosh! We do finally agree on something! As stated ina an ealier
post
>(somewhat differently), I really would like to see both sides of the issue
>stop with the name calling and raching for the highly charged analogies
>(that generally don't even equate) - guns, killing, rape, etc. and just
have
>a real open discussion.
>
>Okay, so I am living in a dreamland! :-)
kurt wismer
[snip]
> > You can't go back through his dejanews posts because the
> > little coward has pulled most of those. It's no secret that Raid is
> > anti-social scum.
>
> This "little-coward" has NOT EVER pulled anything from dejanews.
no, probably not specifically from dejanews, though you have cancelled
posts, and not just duplicates...
[snip]
> Arseman, Stop posting about me; You don't know me. And your lieing at
> this point. I hate liers.
does this mean you will refrain from it yourself in the future?
> > Ah, but with Raid, you don't have to ask. He has written what he
> > believes.
>
> You've never asked me what I believe Arseman, Your ASSuming again.
please re-read... you've provided the aforementioned information without
request on his (or anyone's) part... requests are unnecessary when you've
already given the information...
kurt wismer
[snip]
> You're pretty new here. I'm not trying to open up a channel of communication
> with raid. He's too stoned to remember what he wrote in his last message,
> much the less to be able to maintain a dialog. Raid is scum, and he's not
> going to accept anyone's point of view. I'll save reasonable discussions for
> PaX and others who are not anti-social.
seems reasonable on the surface, doesn't it?
too bad it ain't...
negative reinforcement, what every virus writer needs - not!
no one is beyond hope... if you don't treat all people reasonably just as
a matter of principle then those who get the business end of your wit will
fell arbitrarily persecuted - and perhaps rightly so...
not that raid doesn't have some unpleasant truths to face, he does, and
the last thing he needs is an excuse not to face them...
Richard Lupu
In all fairness, how are you sure who and who you have not hurt. You
have writen more than one virus. I have no direct proof that you have
in fact let these viruses into the wild but I do know you make them
available for download. It is only my opinion but to me this is no
different than any other form of distribution. I do not hate you but
I do in fact hate what you do. That is not directed to the Vxer group
in general that is directed to you. I do not imagine you care what I
think but I figured I would go on record. I do not hope you die nor
do I wish any violence upon you. If the oppurtunity comes up for me
to help prosecute you for the distibution of the viruses you have
made available I will do so.
As far as Nick goading you into releasing another virus, I am sorry
but that is pure bunk. If you release another virus that
responsibility lies soley upon you shoulders and the blame will rest
on you and you alone.
On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:22:11 -0700, Raid Slam
<soho20N...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <OawyYTaF$GA.152@cpmsnbbsa05>, "Randy Abrams"
><ran...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> If you choose to
>> think highly of someone (like raid) who deliberately sabotages groups
>> that help child abuse victims, etc. it's your business. Don't expect
>> people to think very highly of you for making that choice, but it is
>> your choice.
>
>I'll thank you not to compare me to people like that, asshole.
>
>Arseman,
>
>I don't sabotage any groups or any person. Your personal differences
>with me should remain out of your snide little comments to other
>posters. Atleast act like you have some manners Arse.
>
Richard Lupu
I know this was not directed to me but I figured I
would add my two cents worth. ;-)
On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:19:19 -0700, "Omnivore"
<sun...@SPAMOFFpacbell.net> wrote:
> The thief is 100% responsible for being a thief I would suppose. - Or
>mostly so anyway. Who knows what values he got raised with.
Agree
> Someone who left their keyes in the ar is 100% responsible in relation
>to stupid or careless.
Disagree, the fact that we have to have keys is unfortunate but true.
The fact I need A/V software is unfortunate but true.
I should have the right to leave my doors wide open and not fear
invasion.
I should have the right to open any file and leave my PC wide open
and not fear infection.
I fear the invader does have to take full blame. Temptation
is not a justification.
> Have you ever stolen anything?
Yep
>Was it yeilding to a temptation?
Nope, it was a conscious descision that I made to break the law. Was
it wrong? Yes it was. Was I a hundred percent responsible? Yes I was.
> Through carelessness, ignorance or malicious intent is one not
>responsible for presenting others with temptation?
One is responsible for the action of tempting and one is responsible
for the action of the deed. The two are exclusive and have no
bearing on each other. To deny blame because one is tempted or
goaded is surely a sign of a weak will and mind.
> Do you condemn all others who do not live to your standards of strong
>moral character?
Not at all. Do I condem their actions? Yes. If you were still doing
what you used to do would I condem you? No. Would I condem
the action? Yes. Does the action negate the other good stuff you
do? No. Does the other good stuff make the action acceptable? No.
>Is there anyone who looks down on you for not living to
>their own standards?
Every person driving the speed limit in the left lane, or
right lane in when in England ;-) . I choose to break the law
everyday. I speed. I admit it is wrong and if I am
pulled over I take the ticket graciously and with respect to
the police officer. I am responsible and I make no qualms
about it. Do people hate me for it? Yes. Do I blame them for
hating me? No. Do I blame them for hating speeders as a group?
No. Do I blame other speeders for making me speed? No.
Do I expect to be insulted? Yes. Am I surprised? No.
Do I try to run them over if they insult me? No. Do I call them
Nazis when they insult me in some inane attempt to justify
my wrong doing with percieved racial prejudice? No.
On a side note I take great caution to slow down if I feel
my actions my harm others. The actions I condem of some
individuals take no such precautions. In my opinion there
is no justification what so ever for releasing, or making
available, malicious code. I have no problem with playing
and creating it in controlled enviroments.
Glad to hear you turned the leaf, too bad about the
set up though ;-)
Rich
Richard Lupu
<soho20N...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
>I don't invade peoples privacy; They have to download and execute the
>virus, it's hardly automatic. And I don't normally destroy anyones
>"data" either. In fact, Termites second payload doesn't actually
>destroy anything. It renames the root entries to high ascii; Sure, it's
>tedious to rename them back, But no data is lost. If you somehow
>mistook that for wiping a hard disk (Kim Neely, Symantec, Mcafee all
>did) then I'd say it's technical error on your part.
<snip>
One person has to download toadie or termite or any other of your
inane creations. They replicate and then they invade privacy. As
fas as I am concerned you are responsible. So in my eyes, you
invade privacy. You created them, you made them available and
you are ultimately responsible for them. You pathetic discalimers
do not absolve you from blame as far as I am concerned.
Define destroy. You have safe gaurds but for an average user they
are not going to do a lot of good. I find it hard to believe that you
cannot see that. Tedious is an understatement. But the point is
moot. Harmful or not, the viruses are an invasion of my computer
privacy and therefore wrong.
As far as data loss?
Taken from your own words when describing Toadie:
"Important! If you make any changes to an infected file, it's contents
will become corrupted (possibly beyond restoration) the next time you
attempt to execute it. If you wish to email an infected file, Be sure
to use anarchiving utility which will preserve and restore the
date/time stampexactly as it was on your computer. Infected files are
very sensitive."
Maybe not directly causing data loss but it makes it pretty easy to
corrupt data in my eyes.
<snip>
>I do not spread them; A website doesn't automatically send whats on it
>to a computer, unless that computer has requested the information.
<snip>
Please save those rantings for the media. You are just as
responsible as the person who downloads the files.
>I've never been informed any of those groups were ever infected with
>one of my viruses; So just how am I supposed to send them a
>disinfector?
What bearing does that have. How could you possibly know what
damage Toadie is going to cause now that it exists in the wild?
>I've helped people to remove some of my viruses before Yes.
When? It is not that I am saying you have not, just that with your
track record I am afraid I will need proof. How about this
statement of your Web site?
Taken from Raid's Web site:
"The author (RAiD [SLAM]) can be contacted via email at
(rai...@juno.com)Requests for source code will be routed to
\dump\trash. Do not email asking for a cleaner for this virus, as I
will not provide one nor any such assistance."
This does not show a willing desire to help as far as I can tell.
>And I don't "gleefully giggle" at them, I laugh at the "state of the art in
>antivirus technology" when it fails right before their eyes. The two
>are not the same.
Yes you do, you do exactly that. Care to explain "Raid's MailBag
of funny letters". Thats all it is Raid. You making fun of innocent
people who are infected with your viruses. Your laughing right in
their face.
>Considering you don't know what software I've written for the
>commercial/shareware/freeware/private government markets, Your hardly
>in a position to comment on it, or the reason I develop viruses.
I can't speak for Randy, but I have no knowledge of any useful
programs you have written. I know you must not be proud of them
because I see no mention of them on your Web site. I am not saying
you have not written them just that you do not seem as pleased with
them as you do with your malicious code.
Rich
kurt wismer
> Oh my gosh! We do finally agree on something! As stated ina an ealier post
> (somewhat differently), I really would like to see both sides of the issue
> stop with the name calling and raching for the highly charged analogies
> (that generally don't even equate) - guns, killing, rape, etc. and just have
> a real open discussion.
>
> Okay, so I am living in a dreamland! :-)
the only way to fail is not to try at all...
kurt wismer
> Hmm... actually thats not a bad idea...
> Next time windows crashes I'll get to pummel Bill Gates...
>
> On second thoughts I would probably be pummeled by several security
> guards first... :)
yeah, but it would be worth it...
Al Leitch
------------------------------------
Team2000 PC/Palm Pilot Programming Team:
http://ppilot.homepage.com - Win32/DOS NASM progs, WordBasic and a paper I wrote
on Palm Pilot virus spreadability.
El Gato wrote:
> OK, a lot of things to respond to, and no many time (yes, Nick
> i have a job, and a pretty interesting one, actually), so let's
> do a single big response, random order, sorry for that.
>
> Let's start by Omnivore, who said a lot of interesting things:
>
> > The fellow who says he made Happy99 says this and that about his
> >motives. I dunno what they may have been. I think the result has been a
> >number of folks getting more into some AV software and maybe becoming more
> >safe from some more destructive mischief. - If that were a motive I would
> >think it commendable enough. Doesn't matter to me of his motive though. It
> >is the only virus (worm - whatever....) I got surprised by. It did result in
> >my becoming more virus conscious and kept me from picking up at least one
> >thing I forget the name of.
>
> This confirms what i said dozens of times in this group,
> with everybody laughing at me: "sympathic" viruses can
> have a positive and educational effect on users. Not all
> the time, unfortunately, because of user panic. I'm frank:
> this is not the main reason why i code viruses. But that's
> one of the multiple reasons, for sure.
>
> Omnivore again, about Nickie:
>
> > Ha ha - I can only imagine that the folks who would be the most
> >malicious in doing what he hates so much would be even more amused by him
> >than I am. He cheers them up with his carrying on and claims he is winner.
>
> Sure. I know this is going to inflate even more his ego (that's
> not really a critic: i have quite a big ego too), but Nickie is
> a favorite subject of conversation between Vx people. His most
> hateful posts are a great fuel for coders, they give great motivation
> for everyone. I'm not joking: this is a true fact.
>
> Omni:
>
> > I fine it a bit of amazing/amusing when someone basically says, "You are
> >scum and I hate you and I want you to accept my point of view." - Hell of a
> >way to open a channel of communication. ;-)
>
> So exact. This is why 1) you cannot engage a serious debate with
> Nick and 2) i personally try to never fall into this name calling
> trap. I wrote so many messages in this group and i cannot remember
> i used an insult, even once.
>
> Let's look at what Pierre said, about Raid (a bit) strong words:
>
> >At this points, the public thinks you have run short of arguments and have
> >been rethorically blasted. Of course, the public is stupid, but still....
>
> You're right, Pierre. But why don't you post the same message when
> Nick talks the same way than Raid?
>
> DigitAl56K:
>
> >I'm not getting at either side, or any one person here - but as a
> >whole its getting a little more then boring to find that every time AV
> >and VX disagree on something it very quickly rises to cheap attacks
> >and name calling.
>
> You know, the most venenous, acid, bitter attacks i've seen here
> are *between* antivirus people, and not AV versus Vx. The fact
> is virus writers do not represent nothing more than themselves, and
> what they do is just a hobby. When a conversation become too much
> agressive, we don't really care, we have nothing to win or to loose.
> That's a different matter when AV fight together, because they each
> represent compagnies, and the AV industry is a multi-million dollar
> market. So all kind of snake oil, low-level attacks or bad-mouthing
> is authorized to attract more customers.
> A journalist doing research on both sides of the AV/Vx game once told
> me that she was really surprised by the lack of honesty from AV people
> (mostly marketroids, to be frank, but some big bosses too).
>
> Larry did this global remark:
>
> >While I am not a real
> >expert in debate, writing viruses, or creating AV products, it would appear
> >that those on the virus writing/VX side are those with the lame arguments
> >(at least in tis thread). Why not just come forward with an open debate.
>
> Oh shit, and what am i doing right now??? :)
>
> Raid, although a bit upset sometimes, said interesting things too, for
> example:
>
> >I heard that the primary reason
> >you left was because of the trouble you caused for them, by using your
> >ego instead of your head. :)
>
> I noticed nobody answered this simple question: why did Nick resign
> from VB? Nick? If you want to dissipate rumors, i guess you should
> explain a bit here. And what is this "Computer Virus Consulting Ltd"?
> You were not able to find a job in some AV compagny, so you founded
> your own? Just curious here.
>
> OK, now let's respond to Good Ol'Nickie himself (ohhh, i have
> a thrill whenever i do that :)
>
> >Thus, *anyone* who creates such a program has broken a serious
> >"computing society taboo".
>
> You're right in your terms. Creating a virus is a "taboo". But
> it appears that taboos are a very moving concept. It depends
> on culture, education, time, etc. So each one has his own
> taboos. Yours are not the same as mine, and that's a fact you
> should face with an open mind (we can dream a bit). Talking
> freely about sex was a taboo fifty years ago. It's still a
> taboo for some old people, but no more for young generations.
> This kind of concept is evolving fast. Another example, more
> computer-related. Producing hacking tools was (and mostly
> still is) a big taboo. Anyway, Cult of the Dead Cow released
> BO2K in plain light, inviting all medias, and even computer
> security experts, to the release conference. The taboo is
> starting to fade away.
>
> >Let me see -- the people who claim it is invalid to
> >discredit their ethics because they behave in unethical
> >ways are now arguing that my views are discredited
> >because I use strong language?
>
> The errors of others (including mine) are not an excuse for
> your own errors.
>
> >Maybe I have strong views? That's a lot better than
> >acting unethically...
>
> You're right. But the problem is not here. The problem is that
> unethical actions can sometimes be the direct consequences of
> exposing strong views with strong words. I mean that you feed
> very efficiently the motivation of virus coders that you are
> supposed to fight. You want a recent example? Remember last
> month when the webmaster of coderz.net (Evul) popped here,
> because of Raid's site being hosted by him. Graham and others
> explained to him very quietly and respectfully what could be the
> possible consequences of offering binary viruses on his website.
> After thinking a bit, Evul took the decision to remove all
> viruses from his site. Although i'm a virus coder, i totally
> respect the Evul decision, and i even respect Graham for the
> manner he solved this particular problem, with his typical
> argumentation, choosing some "real world" examples of viruses
> effect on innocent users.
>
> Now let's imagine you and not Graham responded to Evul with
> your hmmm... typical words. Do you really think that the result
> would be the same?
>
> These are facts. These things happened publicly in front of
> all acv readers eyes. Just think about that, Nick.
>
> >Recently I have decided that
> >the kid glove -- treat them with respect -- approach has
> >been singularly unsuccessful in dissuading people
> >entering VX/virus writing and decided that it was time
> >to call a spade a spade.
>
> Recently? I never saw you treating a Vx with respect, and i read
> this group (and comp.virus when it was alive and you were the
> moderator) since a lot of years now. About the success of
> treating Vx with more respect, see above, and see my other
> personal comments in this thread on the impact some people
> could have on me.
>
> >Well, bad luck -- in general your
> >"hobby" is despised, as are those who follow it.
>
> That's true. Maybe this is why we like this hobby, it's more
> underground than the underground. No one will never defend us,
> no illusion here, and i kind of like this feeling: i have to
> defend myself alone. This is why i sometimes feel the need to
> explain more my motivations. In this group, for example. Or
> in newspapers. You should be surprised to know how journalists
> like to talk with us. To terminate, I perfectly understand
> that an infected average user hates me. I actually saw that
> many times. People in this group are not supposed to be
> average users. So i talk here.
>
> >Don't like that? Well wake up and smell the coffee then
> >get a responsible hobby or a life.
>
> You should read papers that you published in your journal.
> Sarah Gordon's ones, for example. She perfectly showed that
> most virus writers are socially well-integrated guys, and the
> old cliche you have in mind ("no-life punks with no girlfriend")
> is wrong. I met quite a few of them in real life, and i can
> confirm her work.
>
> >> of yourself, sometimes flirting with the limits of the
> >> law (incitation to suicide, threats...), and of course
> >> i'm not talking about the limits of good taste.
>
> >So sue me...
>
> Why do you want me to sue you? I just note that you are
> sometimes close to the outlaw border, just like virus writers
> i should add. A lawyer (someone?) may or may not confirm.
>
> >>> This has a name in psychiatry. It's called schizophrenia.
>
> >...which you know from first-hand exposure to those
> >who treat its sufferers, perhaps??
>
> Hehe, you're not so wrong. Playing with a lot of nicknames and
> personalities is akin to schizophrenia sometimes. We are both
> sick, you see. Someone knows a good psy? Maybe if we go to the
> consultations together we can save some money.
>
> >Yeah, yeah. And just like most "supremacists" and
> >"hate crime" supporters, I post from heavily anonymized
> >addresses, making every possible attempt to hide my real
> >identity.
>
> Ah, your good old argument. Let's think a bit about it for once.
>
> First, virus writers. Why do they post anonymously? Because
> their hobby is forbidden in some country. Because they don't
> want people to know their underground activities. Because they
> simply want to protect their private life. Note that this a
> right a lot of people is fighting for, like EFF. I see nothing
> more than coherence here. The interesting thing is that people
> complaining most about anonymity of Vx are the same who threat
> them and say all the time they should go in jail. It's like
> the serpent biting his tail, you know. You're upset because
> we are anonymous, but we are anonymous because of your behavior.
>
> [Digression]
>
> Actually, this kind of rhetorical strategy is often used by
> Nick, and i have to admit that this is quite efficient to
> distract readers from the lack of argumentation, discredit
> the contradictor, and block all possible response. Examples,
> taken and simplified from some older Nick post:
>
> "If you don't respond to this, that demonstrate you're wrong.
> If you respond, we all will be able to see how lame you are."
>
> "If you're anonymous, you're a coward.
> If you give us your identity, i denounce you to the
> police/root/whatever."
>
> "If you don't admit you are wrong, you lack moral development."
>
> (very smart here: in one single phrase he blocks all
> possibilities of positive response)
>
> [End of digression]
>
> You know, some people in France, and even in this group, globally
> considered as anti-virus, know my real identity. Because i trust
> them. So the real problem is not cowardice. The real problem is
> people like you who always threaten us. Do you really think i
> will offer you the pleasure to denounce me to french cops (who,
> by the way, are getting a bit tough with computer underground
> these last monthes) or my bosses? I don't give you my identity
> because i don't trust you, Nick. It's that simple.
>
> The problem is the same for Vx people who never did something
> illegal, because the term "virus" has a so bad connotation it
> can harm a lot. A good example is your constant argument that
> Doren is a "self-proclaimed virus writer", without never adding
> that his virus is a useful-oriented piece of code to test scanners,
> and he has a lot of satisfied customers around the world. Doren
> is not anonymous, but even with that, you try to harm his
> reputation in front of newcomers. I can imagine you will do
> something similar with more classical virus coders. PaX gave
> you his phone number: what about calling his boss saying he's
> a virus writer? Without explaining that he never spread none
> of his creations, of course. At your style.
>
> Second, you. Do you feel really brave to insult dozens of
> people in this group, even if you post with your real name?
> You perfectly know, as every "hate poster" on Usenet (and
> there are so much) that the probability of someone getting
> so offended that he will knock on your door to kick your
> ass in a physical manner is very very low. The geographical
> reason is the main one, but there are others. You know too
> that virus writers don't really like plain light, and their
> life as virus writers is limited to the internet. Once they
> disconnect, they are John, David, Sam, and no more DarkFucker,
> LethalDestructor or LordKiller. And as they are not at all
> connected to the AV industry, they cannot harm your reputation
> as you could do with them. We have some power in the virtual
> world, but we are weak enemies in real life, you know that.
> And you use this fact. You are like a guy insulting people
> bound to a wall with chains, and treating them as cowards
> because they do not react to your insults.
>
> So, Nick, for me, you are the coward.
>
> Nick again, responding to Omnivore in another message:
>
> >Nope -- it's just that you and your ilk have been too lame
> >over the last decade or so to level any vaguely convincing
> >argument to suggest my view needs adjusting.
>
> Omnivore is not a virus coder, he doesn't collect viruses,
> he has nothing to do with the Vx world, as he explained.
> Just because he doesn't agree with you, you classify him
> as a Vx guy? That's typical of your reasoning: you must
> classify people between two groups, the Goods and the Evils.
> It seems that moderation is something you cannot understand.
>
> He continues:
>
> >It's not that I'm bigoted -- just that I hold the
> >intellectual and moral highground over you, you are
> >powerless to fix that as you are simply in the wrong and
> >you know that but are too gutless to admit it.
>
> Concerning the intellectual background, let me doubt. You did
> the error to publish your biography on the web, Nick. In term
> of formal intellectual education, i beat you so much that i
> will even not insist on it. In term of moral background, i
> don't know. I guess you have your little weaknesses, like
> all of us. My weakness: i write viruses. What's yours, Nick?
>
> >The 'problem' is
> >that they refuse to learn and seldom address the arguments
> >made against them. *That* is intellectual dishonesty --
> >"we'd like to debate this... but won't talk about the real
> >issues". Come on, please...
>
> I'm here, ready to talk (it seems that you didn't read what
> i post since three years, well, i will do it again...).
> Let's go.
>
> >Of course, you
> >and your pro-virus buddies immediately took up an ad
> >hominem attack on me instead of engaging my claims.
>
> I stop here, because this phrase is really the best one from
> Nick, the more unexpected and funny i've ever seen: "you bad
> boys, you attack me!"... Nick surprised that some people attack
> him! I'm dreaming :)
>
> "Qui seme le vent recolte la tempete."
>
> Gatito.
Raid Slam
(Richard Lupu) wrote:
> One person has to download toadie or termite or any other of your
> inane creations. They replicate and then they invade privacy. As
> fas as I am concerned you are responsible. So in my eyes, you
> invade privacy. You created them, you made them available and
> you are ultimately responsible for them. You pathetic discalimers
> do not absolve you from blame as far as I am concerned.
My disclaimers were created to warn the person, that what he/she is
about to download may be harmful to the persons PC; and that they
should study it very carefully. How would you suggest I explain this to
them?
> Define destroy. You have safe gaurds but for an average user they
> are not going to do a lot of good. I find it hard to believe that
> you cannot see that. Tedious is an understatement. But the point is
> moot. Harmful or not, the viruses are an invasion of my computer
> privacy and therefore wrong.
The safe guards are implemented for the users safety when studying the
said virus. Some of the viruses do include a backdoor; A keyfile that
when found causes the virus to stop infecting, and disinfect infected
executables. None of the Toadie viruses support this tho.
> As far as data loss?
> Taken from your own words when describing Toadie:
> "Important! If you make any changes to an infected file, it's
> contents will become corrupted (possibly beyond restoration) the next
> time you attempt to execute it. If you wish to email an infected
file, > Be sure to use anarchiving utility which will preserve and
restore the
> date/time stampexactly as it was on your computer. Infected files
> are very sensitive."
Yes, that's a warning about possible file corruption of infected
executables. If it was data loss I was aiming for, I'd have kept my
mouth shut regarding that. :)
> Maybe not directly causing data loss but it makes it pretty easy
> to corrupt data in my eyes.
How often do people modify executables tho?
> Please save those rantings for the media. You are just as
> responsible as the person who downloads the files.
I don't like/tolerate the media. I'm not responsible for infecting
someone, If *I* didn't give the infected person the virus. You can't
blame me for someone elses actions.
> What bearing does that have. How could you possibly know what
> damage Toadie is going to cause now that it exists in the wild?
None. It has no damage payloads. And it shouldn't stay ITW for much
longer. Antivirus software has been updated to deal with it. So I don't
expect it's stay ITW to be very long.
> When? It is not that I am saying you have not, just that with your
> track record I am afraid I will need proof. How about this
> statement of your Web site?
Proof you say? Merely dejanews search for krile/termite. You'll find
cases where I did help the infected user. I provided information on how
to create the backdoor keyfiles (for the viruses which support it; not
all of mine do)
> Taken from Raid's Web site:
> "The author (RAiD [SLAM]) can be contacted via email at
> (rai...@juno.com)Requests for source code will be routed to
> \dump\trash. Do not email asking for a cleaner for this virus, as I
> will not provide one nor any such assistance."
> This does not show a willing desire to help as far as I can tell.
I don't like to recieve many emails. Especially source code requests; I
don't want cheap hacks of my viruses. Emailing asking for a cleaner is
also an annoyance, as the user will often not tell you which
virus/version of virus it is they are infected with. One cleaning
method isn't suitable for all varients of the same virus family.
> Yes you do, you do exactly that. Care to explain "Raid's MailBag
> of funny letters". Thats all it is Raid. You making fun of innocent
> people who are infected with your viruses. Your laughing right in
> their face.
No, The mailbag is a demonstration of some types of users we have on
the net. It's not intended to "make fun" of anybody. It's intended to
show for the record; that my viruses do have spreadability; Despite
claims made by certain avers in the past.
> I can't speak for Randy, but I have no knowledge of any useful
> programs you have written. I know you must not be proud of them
> because I see no mention of them on your Web site. I am not saying
> you have not written them just that you do not seem as pleased
> with them as you do with your malicious code.
Because the "useful" programs have my real name on them. And they
aren't viruses. My website is devoted to viral material; Not other
types of applications. If it were a utilities website, and I wasn't
Raid; then there would be a website for them. (There's one now, but I
don't own/control any aspect of it; and No, I'm not going to give you
(a) the url or (b) my name or (c) the names of the programs. (as they
tend to have my real name)
I'm quiet pleased with the programs, As some have won good marks during
testing; And others are used as (get ready!) teaching materials in
computer training courses in a certain college. One's also published in
a book concerning data security; It's one of the utilities your advised
to use.
No, I can't tell you the program name, or the college, or the book name
(you can order it from barnes and noble tho; but it's not a cheap book.)
You can either belief me, or not. I can't provide you with the proof to
backup my claims on this one, because the proof could be turned and
used to harm me.
Raid Slam
wismer <a324...@cdf.toronto.edu> wrote:
> no, probably not specifically from dejanews, though you have
> cancelled posts, and not just duplicates...
Wrong again. I have cancelled copies (duplicates) when my news reader
has crashed. (It does this every so often. that's "News Xpress" for
you.)
I have *not* deleted my own messages that weren't copies! (or anyone
elses messages)
> does this mean you will refrain from it yourself in the future?
I haven't lied to anyone here Kurt.
Larry Bridwell
news:1999101404525...@nym.alias.net...
> OK, a lot of things to respond to, and no many time (yes, Nick
> i have a job, and a pretty interesting one, actually), so let's
> do a single big response, random order, sorry for that.
>
> Larry did this global remark:
>
> >While I am not a real
> >expert in debate, writing viruses, or creating AV products, it would
appear
> >that those on the virus writing/VX side are those with the lame arguments
> >(at least in tis thread). Why not just come forward with an open debate.
>
> Oh shit, and what am i doing right now??? :)
Now you are seem to be responding with debate. Thanks, lets see where it
goes.
I may have more to add, after musing over your's and other's responses.
Raid Slam
(Richard Lupu) wrote:
> Raid, In all fairness, how are you sure who and who you have not hurt.
> You have writen more than one virus. I have no direct proof that you
> have in fact let these viruses into the wild but I do know you make
> them available for download. It is only my opinion but to me this is
> no different than any other form of distribution. I do not hate you
> but I do in fact hate what you do. That is not directed to the Vxer
> group in general that is directed to you. I do not imagine you care
> what I think but I figured I would go on record. I do not hope you
die > nor do I wish any violence upon you.
Being as they are viruses, designed to replicate and survive on their
own; I have no real way of knowing who has/ has not seen one. That's an
accepted risk, when you allow a virus to be downloaded. I maintain that
I have not directly released any virus into the wild. That's not what I
write them for. If they get into the wild, it's because someone else
thought the virus was worth their time to spread it. While I respect
your opinion on this issue, I don't agree with it. There is a large
difference between hosting a virus on a known pro-virus site vses
releasing it into the wild disquised as some cell phone cloning
utility, to site a recent example.
> If the oppurtunity comes up for me to help prosecute you for the > >
> distribution of the viruses you have made available I will do so.
Are you in the legal profession or something? A lawyer, or a pig?
(Please do excuse the pig comment, I don't like police very much.)
You can't prosecute me if I haven't done anything wrong; And I haven't.
Perhaps not moral in your eyes, but not illegal.
> As far as Nick goading you into releasing another virus, I am sorry
> but that is pure bunk. If you release another virus that
> responsibility lies soley upon you shoulders and the blame will
> rest on you and you alone.
Hmm. It's not really all that pure. You see, Nick has this problem. He
doesn't like to admit it, but he has it. It's called "goating". (No
sexual inneundo jokes from the audience please). When Nick sees
something not going his way, He makes every effort to goat the person
into a fight. Similiar to high school standards. See the person;
antagonize him, and he'll fight eventually. Nick uses this same
philosphy (sp?). It strikes me odd, being as he's on the Antivirus
side; that he'd want to egg virus authors on. But, that's his choice.
And I will certainly accept.