Let me tell you my virus story.
Sugien
whom think themselves better than anyone who has a problem; simply because they
are self appointed "Experts". I read this most times either to report
something that may concern users or something that might help or just to see who
gets jumped on with both feet simply because they asked a question. AV stuff is
not my forte; but I have been in computer software and hardware since the
military trained me in 1971; but I have NEVER talked down to someone whom seemed
to know less than I. Now Nick will give you good advice and assistance; BUT you
will have to put up with the way he does it if you really need the help.
"Nick FitzGerald" <ni...@virus-l.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:01bf8ef9$a6f15d20$0500000a@mobilenick...> Warren <me@myself.i> wrote:
>
>>>snip<<<<
> Had you come here *before* deciding you could fix it,
> you would likely have got good advice and assistance
> that would have saved you all that trouble.
>
> Nick FitzGerald
Nick FitzGerald
> good advice and assistance? ...
Sorry you do not like it that when people post bad
advice, utterly wrong-headed instructions or repeat
"mythical knowledge" thereby tending to strengthen it,
that those of us who know better correct them.
Without such reform and improvement, we would not have
got to where we are today. If that is challenging for
you, please stop reading the group, or at least stop
expressing your apparent need to contribute, as doing
so seems contradictory to your position on
"advancement".
--
Nick FitzGerald
at@webnetsoldot.com Phil J
"Nick FitzGerald" <ni...@virus-l.demon.co.uk> wrote
>Sorry you do not like it that when people post bad
>advice, ...[snip]
Bill was the only person before you to reply to the original post. What do
you mean "bad advice"? Here is Bill reply;
>Most on access AV scanners of any quality at all would have denied you
>access to the file and therefore nothing would have been installed.
>Perhaps you should get a better product.
I don't think that's bad advice. It did help him solve his problem but it
certainly isn't bad advice. Really, I think Sugien and I are both on the
right track here. You really should have a psyc. eval or something because
you just fit in well with the rest of humanity. Lighten up or can it.
:)Phil
at@webnetsoldot.com Phil J
"Phil J" <phil at@webnetsol dot.com> wrote
>I don't think that's bad advice. It did help him solve his
problem...[snip]
Should have read "It didn't help him solve his problem"
:)Phil
we all make typing errors but I know you'll bash me for it anyway Nick.
Sugien
made. You are still mad because I posted "CRIPPLED" virus code(to another NG
for someone whom asked to see it). BUT just a little later one of your regs of
this NG posted a link to FULL viable(on unpatched machines) virus code ; but
you didn't give him any where near the hard time you gave me even though my code
was crippled!!! so it wouldn't replicate, where as his was FULL and functional.
Did you have someone call him by phone, the same way you had one of your cronies
call me; and threaten him with legal action and sending the FBI to his door like
you did to me?
I think you are a very insecure person and anyone whom shows any tech
ability as a potential threat to your standing in this NG. You can rest assured
I have NO interest in your standing in this or any NG. I read this and other
NG's to see if I can help, and if I see something I can assist with I do. True
your knowledge of virus tech IS superior to mine; simply because I have never
had more than a passing interest in virus tech other than to run a av product.
I have more interest in AI than virus; although the two are somewhat related
(yep I know you disagree with that but it IS TRUE they are related just deal
with the fact)
"Nick FitzGerald" <ni...@virus-l.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:01bf8f07$c37f34e0$0500000a@mobilenick...
> Sugien <gen...@mindless.com> wrote:
>
> > good advice and assistance? ...
>
> Sorry you do not like it that when people post bad
LHigdon
wrote:
<snipped>
, the same way you had one of your cronies
>call me; and threaten him with legal action and sending the FBI to his door like
>you did to me?
>
Is that really true? Are you certain as to whom it was that dropped a
dime on you? I hope it's not true. I was always hoping that Fascism
eventually would evaporate into the ether.
Peace......
Lee Higdon
Fayetteville, GA., USA
email addresses:
lthi...@mciworld.com
lhigd...@mindspring.com
Sugien
last time I posted his "Private email to me" but I will quote from it I ask him
in a email >I received a phone call from Pat Mullen (xxx-xxx-4660) of MSS
> computer consultants He stated that you called him to see if
> he could find out any information on me (Sugien). I am writing
> you to find out "is this true?" and did you in fact contact him
> about me . and his reply was:
"I have known Pat for several years. He is a security consultant,
pretty much self-employed (like me) with contracts (and many
contacts) in the computer security and/or antivirus fields. I did
tip him off about your post to a.h.m and suggested that he may be
interested in looking at the file you posted." *****and he futher stated*****
"Indeed, and as I said above, I put Pat onto you. Should your code turn up in a
real-world outbreak, we now know where to send the FBI"
"LHigdon" <lhigd...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:38d0fe01...@nntp.mindspring.com...
Raid Slam
> I will quote om it I ask him
Nick gets upset, Big deal. I don't care if Nick has a bad/good
day or anything. He's only as big and bad as you allow him to be.
He often reminds me of a little child, screaming and whining when
he doesn't get his own way. Oh and the condesding attitude he
displays would likely cause him bodily harm if he lived in this
area. Nah nick, it's not a threat or anything. Just some people
are punch you out first, ask questions later. Talking down to
some people will likely cause the punch you out response.
>in a email >I received a phone call from Pat Mullen
(xxx-xxx-4660) of MSS
I too have recieved a phone call from him.He did make the threat
that (lemme see if I can quote the cocksucker properly) "You are
wanted in several states for computer crimes, And we're getting
closer to you.". It's illegal to call in the united states and
harras/threaten someone over the phone.
Now, I've mentioned before (read rolling stones sept 16t, 1999
issue for proof that the love monkey does exist, and that it
caused some hassle for poor Nicky) about a virus that would email
sexually inviting letters to Nick. Nick at one time did deny this
virus had existed, perhaps he was trying to be a smartass. But,
the point of the virus is this: Nick finally annnoyed someone to
the point where they decided to pull a "nick" in response.
Myself, I'd have loved to see the expression on his bosses face
when the mail server got flooded with fuck me notes for nick.
haha
Regards,
Raid [SLAM]
www.coderz.net/Raid
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk
soho20N...@hotmail.com.invalid (Raid Slam) wrote:
> I too have recieved a phone call from him.He did make
> the threat that (lemme see if I can quote the cocksucker
> properly) "You are wanted in several states for computer
> crimes, And we're getting closer to you.". It's illegal to
> call in the united states and harras/threaten someone over
> the phone.
If you think he's done something illegal why not go to the authorities
and complain? Of course, they'll ask you to fill in a form or
something.. they'll probably ask you for your name and address for
starters..
--
Graham Cluley, Head of Corporate Communications, Sophos Anti-Virus
email: gcl...@sophos.com http://www.sophos.com
US Support: +1 888 SOPHOS 9 UK Support: +44 1235 559933
Raid Slam
sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>In article <084b857c...@usw-ex0106-045.remarq.com>,
>soho20N...@hotmail.com.invalid (Raid Slam) wrote:
>If you think he's done something illegal why not go to the
> authorities and complain?
Er... Because that wouldn't be in my best interests? Besides,
he's all talk and no action. Nobody poses any real threat to me.
You certainly never have.
>they'll probably ask you for your name and address
>for starters..
Fuck you. All you do is whine to reporters anxious to write a
cheap story. None of what you are quoted as saying is even true.
I'm starting to suspect the "toadie has brought down an austrian
company over august weekend" is bullshit created by your company
to sell more software. Am I wrong?
>Graham Cluley, Head of Corporate Communications, Sophos
Promoted?
Regards,
Raid [SLAM]
Nick FitzGerald
> >Sorry you do not like it that when people post bad
> >advice, ...[snip]
>
> Bill was the only person before you to reply to the original post. What
do
> you mean "bad advice"? Here is Bill reply;
Does your newsreader not display threads?
I did not reply to Bill.
> I don't think that's bad advice. It did help him solve his problem but
it
> certainly isn't bad advice. Really, I think Sugien and I are both on the
> right track here. You really should have a psyc. eval or something
because
> you just fit in well with the rest of humanity. Lighten up or can it.
The original poster, to whom I responded, if that is not clear
from both the threading in the group *and* in the message,
wasted a great deal of his time on what was more than likely a
*very* simple problem. The trouble with "simple problems" is
they only appear that way of you have the right background.
That poster described a convoluted and unnecessarily complex and
time consuming "fix" to his problem. Anyone who suggests that
installing a new copy of the OS in a different folder, backing
up whatever is valuable then reformatting, re-installing from
scratch and the restoring the backed up files when 20 seconds in
RegEdit or a few minutes with a text editor and a DOS reboot was
probably all that was needed is contributing to the "mysticism"
of faulty computers.
It is almost always completely unnecessary to go to those sort
of lengths, but here's someone saying "do this". Worse, although
you and I understand what he meant, anyone in a similar situation
who decided a full backup was what was needed would end up back
where they started. Although we cannot know for sure, it's also
odds on that anyone who decided that their registry was part of
what the original posted described as "all that was important"
would also end up more or less where they started after doing all
that. They'd have been much better off spending those few hours
chilling out while some quality advice percolated their way
following a question posted here.
*That* is bad advice.
--
Nick FitzGerald
Nick FitzGerald
<<snip>>
> "Indeed, and as I said above, I put Pat onto you. Should your code turn
up in a
> real-world outbreak, we now know where to send the FBI"
So, to answer Lee's question, I did not threaten you with
legal action. I warned you of a possible outcome of persuing
irresponsible activities. You can chew on it however you
like, but the point is that contributory negligience can
still get you in trouble, whether you frame the issue as a
matter of free speech or not.
As someone once said, your freedom of expression ends where
my nose begins. If we extend that to deliberately
replicating computer code, your freedom of expression ends
some way before the code has a chance to reach anyone else's
computer.
--
Nick FitzGerald
sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk
soho20N...@hotmail.com.invalid (Raid Slam) wrote:
> In article <8ar60j$d3o$1...@plutonium.compulink.co.uk>,
> sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> >In article <084b857c...@usw-ex0106-045.remarq.com>,
> >soho20N...@hotmail.com.invalid (Raid Slam) wrote:
>
> > If you think he's done something illegal why not go to the
> > authorities and complain?
>
> Er... Because that wouldn't be in my best interests?
Why not? Have you done something illegal?
> Besides, he's all talk and no action. Nobody poses any
> real threat to me. You certainly never have.
I wouldn't like to think I posed a threat to you. I just get on with my
job, helping my company help people protect themselves against computer
viruses. You're rather inconsequential.
> >they'll probably ask you for your name and address
> >for starters..
>
> Fuck you.
What's the problem? If you have a serious complaint then the least you
can expect to do is put your name and address to the complaint. Otherwise
how can the investigating officers tell you how the investigation is
going?
> All you do is whine to reporters anxious to write a cheap story.
> None of what you are quoted as saying is even true.
We know you don't like me Raid, but on this occasion I was trying to help
you again. You reckon someone has threatened you, so I recommend you
complain to the authorities. You reply to me in the rudest terms. One
wonders why you made the complaint if you don't want any advice on how to
take it further.
> I'm starting to suspect the "toadie has brought down an austrian
> company over august weekend" is bullshit created by your company
> to sell more software. Am I wrong?
You sure are.
> >Graham Cluley, Head of Corporate Communications, Sophos
>
> Promoted?
Yes. Please, no flowers. :) How's your own job going?
Raid Slam
No. your snide innuendo comments are annoying tho. But, I'm sure
you've been told what a wiseass you are.
>
>helping my company help people protect themselves against
>computer viruses. You're rather inconsequential.
And spreading bullshit:
Toadie's creator, "Raid", is actively distributing the virus in
the guise of a program for cloning cell-phones as well as a
program designed to generate adult site passwords, says Sophos.
Graham Cluley, senior technical consultant with Sophos
Anti-Virus, warns the attack should be taken seriously. "The fact
that it's being actively distributed in the same way to Melissa,
is
very worrying," he says
-- Hyping people up to go buy yer warez? heh
"Raid", a virus-writer who distributed the Toadie.exe virus and
then taunted the authorities on a number of public newsgroups,
could now be trying to cover his tracks, according to one
anti-virus expert.
I wonder who the "Expert" is...
Sources at Sophos anti-virus believe that the authorities may
already be hot on the trail of this individual after his or her
virus
crippled the Austrian headquarters of one of their major
international clients over the weekend. Raid posted Toadie.exe to
various warez sites disguised as a password cracking program.
-->Sources at sophos with combined intelligence wouldn't be above
27.2 on an IQ exam.
Graham Cluley, senior technical consultant with Sophos anti-virus
believes Raid could now be in big trouble. He said, "Raid is
playing a very, very dangerous game. The US authorities have
shown that they are prepared to pursue this sort of thing by any
means."
--> Raid thinks Mr graham should suck on his left nut.
Cluley thinks that this case could also have put the wind up
Raid.
He added, "Raid has been fairly quiet of late. Maybe he's just
getting on with his real life, or he's found girls or something,
but he
could well have taken a look at this case and got the
heebie-jeebies."
--> And you av fucks wonder why people always suspect "virus!"
only about 150 or so are actually spreading, yet you hype and
hype it into some major catastrophy.
Got any proof of this graham or was you just bending an ear?
>We know you don't like me Raid, but on this occasion I was
>trying to help you again.
Your real helpful graham.
>You sure are.
Nah, I don't know. Your company is the one who announced it had
infected an austrian company over the weekend. Are you now
retracting this statement?
>Yes. Please, no flowers. :) How's your own job going?
My jobs going well.
sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk
soho20N...@hotmail.com.invalid (Raid Slam) wrote:
> Graham Cluley writes:
> >helping my company help people protect themselves against
> >computer viruses. You're rather inconsequential.
>
> And spreading bullshit:
<snip!>
Maybe you missed the replies I posted here on 14th January 2000 when you
last came up with this particular topic?
sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk
soho20N...@hotmail.com.invalid (Raid Slam) wrote:
> Nah, I don't know. Your company is the one who
> announced it had infected an austrian company over
> the weekend. Are you now retracting this statement?
Certainly not.
Your Toadie virus did indeed infect the Austrian office of a multinational
organisation one weekend. I should know - I was called at home and had to
come in to help send out the alert to customers.
Raid Slam
sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>Maybe you missed the replies I posted here on 14th January 2000
>when you last came up with this particular topic?
You know Graham, if you didn't talk BS to reporters so much, You
wouldn't have to dance around the topic.
You did say those things you bastard, I've read news reports
about you for years. Their is no way they (reporters) would
misquote you that often.
You and sophos ain't shit to me. If i've caused you or your
company any grief, I'm glad. Your only purpose in life it seems
is to lie and cheat.
Raid Slam
sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>Certainly not.
Oh. I'm glad you can be clear on something. It's so hard to
directly ask you anything without you attempting to twist it
around, bastard.
>Your Toadie virus did indeed infect the Austrian office of a
>multinational organisation one weekend.
Great! I hope it caused them alot of problems.
And your welcome to tell them I said so.
> I should know - I was called at home and had to
>come in to help send out the alert to customers.
Yep and the media.. basically anybody stupid enough to listen to
you, and then print your inane bullshit. Instead of hitting sites
like ebay.com, sophos.com should be targetted. Who knows.. maybe
it will be.
If your employer won't do anything about you, perhaps a little
shove in the right direction could help.
No threat implied Nick, so save it.
Raid Slam
FitzGerald" <ni...@virus-l.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>So, to answer Lee's question, I did not threaten you with
>legal action. I warned you of a possible outcome of persuing
>irresponsible activities.
Sounds like a big bully attempt at "guidance". But considering
the source, this isn't entirely surprising.
>You can chew on it however you
>like, but the point is that contributory negligience can
>still get you in trouble, whether you frame the issue as a
>matter of free speech or not.
Nick, stop threatening people. Your making a bigger ass of
yourself every day.
>As someone once said, your freedom of expression ends where
>my nose begins.
Nah, your nose just breaks on the impact of my fist. My
"expression" ends when you are no longer aware of your own
surroundings.
Raid Slam
sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>I'm not dancing round the topic. I told you what actually
>happened back in my January 14th posting, but I don't recall you
>ever replying.
I had to leave the net for a bit due to personal reasons outside
the scope of this discussion. You told me that you didn't say the
things you've been quoted as saying. I spoke with the news
reporter briefly concerning this. He said he did quote you out of
context on a "FEW" lines, but overall what's in print is what you
told him. I would be happy to forward the email I recieved from
him.
>I thought we were just referring to the reports Will Knight
>wrote for ZD?
More dancing. I've compared previous articles where you've
discussed myself and other virus writers to the media. Their is
no way the media is misquoting you that much, graham.
Why don't you just print a retraction to it on your website? That
sounds perfectly logical. A huge error in print on your and
zdnets part, I suspect would demand a retraction of print, or
something about it on your website.
You have no evidence whatsoever that I spread Toadie in anything.
Yet you have stated to numerous media hungry bastards that I not
only spread it as a cell phone (what the fuck?) cloning
application, but also as an adult password generator.
>I told you back on Jan 14 that I complained to him and his
>editor Richard Barry about them way before you ever saw them.
Then why didn't Sophos complain? You are a representative of them
aren't you? Retract the article, or post a rebuttle on the
website. No asshole, You said those things.
>ZD never fixed the reports to my satisfaction, but it's a long
>time ago - water under the bridge and all that.
No asshole, it's not water under the bridge. The shit you are
quoted as saying is damaging from a legal aspect, and is NOT
FUCKING TRUE. How's about I DoS sophos from an oc3 for 3 days,
and then declare it's water under the bridge? Would sophos just
agree and let it go? I don't fuckin think so.
Bastards like you need to learn to tell the truth, not makeup
bullshit to sell your shit, or share your stupid theories. Either
show proof that I've done as you've accused me, OR SHUT THE FUCK
UP.
If you knew the article wasn't true, Why didn't sophos make a
"press release" about it? You released one concerning the virus.
Oh that's right, because he did quote you... and you did say
those things, and Sophos isn't wanting to take a position that a
virus writer might not have spread his virus as they would like
to believe eh?
>I'm sure if you asked Will he would confirm I was
>unhappy with the reports and expressed my unhappiness in the
>strongest possible terms both by phone and email.
I realize you think this is hillarious... But perhaps If I
express my unhappyness at sophos.com's expense, my point will get
across? Do I really need to take a website offline to get some
justice done? It seems like an awful lot of effort for one thing
to me.
I mean seriously fellas, I do have the means and I am capable of
downing damn near any commercial website going. And I'm not
entirely above resorting to lame tactics. (I despise another
person in a similiar situation who downed a site I was associated
with...) But unlike him, if I fire on you graham, I'll stop when
your company is so lagged nobody will be able to access you. And
I mean, nobody.
>You also moan about a couple of Newsbytes reports, seemingly
You and sophos might be moaning about terrible lag here pretty
soon if you continue playing games Graham. I can hit you where it
hurts, your company.
>Sorry you feel like that.
Your not sorry for anything Graham. But you will be.
Randy Abrams
news:0a1bc080...@usw-ex0106-045.remarq.com...<snip>
> I had to leave the net for a bit due to personal reasons outside
> the scope of this discussion. You told me that you didn't say the
Welcome back.
> things you've been quoted as saying. I spoke with the news
> reporter briefly concerning this. He said he did quote you out of
> context on a "FEW" lines, but overall what's in print is what you
> told him. I would be happy to forward the email I recieved from
> him.
Considering the love for the press you have expressed in the past, I don't
believe you would call the reporter a "reliable" source!
> Why don't you just print a retraction to it on your website? That
> sounds perfectly logical. A huge error in print on your and
> zdnets part, I suspect would demand a retraction of print, or
> something about it on your website.
Perhaps if it was of interest to anyone but you, they might print it. I
doubt they'd print anything on their website to satisfy one person, unless
that one persona had a legal claim that could cost them a ton of money.
> You have no evidence whatsoever that I spread Toadie in anything.
I guess that depends on how you define "spread". There are those who would
say that if you wrote it and let it go, you spread it. Perhaps one day we'll
have a legal definition, but even that doesn't preclude individual
definitions.
<snip>
> >I told you back on Jan 14 that I complained to him and his
> >editor Richard Barry about them way before you ever saw them.
>
> Then why didn't Sophos complain? You are a representative of them
Because you're the only person on this planet that cares what they said?
<snip>
> No asshole, it's not water under the bridge. The shit you are
> quoted as saying is damaging from a legal aspect, and is NOT
> FUCKING TRUE.
Yee Haw, now we're getting somewhere. If it is legally damaging, and not
true (fucking or otherwise), then SUE THEM. Come on, quit whining and do
something. You seem to think you've got a legal case. You're not hiding from
the FBI or anything, come out and sue them. Prove your point.
> How's about I DoS sophos from an oc3 for 3 days,
> and then declare it's water under the bridge? Would sophos just
> agree and let it go? I don't fuckin think so.
Eventually it would be water under the bridge to them as well. In the
meantime You may have hit upon a free trip to the UK. Check with your local
legal library for extradition details, you wouldn't want to lose this trip
due to a technicality.
> Bastards like you need to learn to tell the truth, not makeup
> bullshit to sell your shit, or share your stupid theories.
Does this mean that the bastards who tell the truth can make up stuff to
sell things?
> Either show proof that I've done as you've accused me, OR SHUT THE FUCK
UP.
Make him, Raid. Take him to court. I think it's time for you to put up or
shut up. You can sling it with the best of them, now back it up.
<snip>
> I realize you think this is hillarious... But perhaps If I
> express my unhappyness at sophos.com's expense, my point will get
> across? Do I really need to take a website offline to get some
> justice done? It seems like an awful lot of effort for one thing
> to me.
It appears you did check on the extradition stuff. That's one less "i" to
dot, are there any uncrossed t's???
> I mean seriously fellas, I do have the means and I am capable of
> downing damn near any commercial website going. And I'm not
> entirely above resorting to lame tactics.
Yeah, we know, weed, termite, toadie, etc...
> (I despise another person in a similiar situation who downed a site I was
associated
> with...) But unlike him, if I fire on you graham, I'll stop when
> your company is so lagged nobody will be able to access you. And
> I mean, nobody.
Nailed that uncrossed "t", didn't you.
> You and sophos might be moaning about terrible lag here pretty
> soon if you continue playing games Graham. I can hit you where it
> hurts, your company.
Did I tell you that they only let the extradition passengers fly coach.
You'll have to pay for a business class or first class upgrade yourself.
It's a long flight too.
<snip>
> Your not sorry for anything Graham. But you will be.
Some people will do anything to hear Big Ben .
BTW Raid, I'm not threatening you with anything. Just a few words of wisdom
for you...When a Chihuahua barks, people hear it and get annoyed. The
chihuahua is ridiculed and goes on barking. When a pit bull bites, it gets
put down. You might consider it better to be a living chihuahua than an
extinguished pit bull.
Regards,
Randy
--
--
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of the Microsoft Corporation.
Raid Slam
<ran...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>Considering the love for the press you have expressed in the
>past, I don't believe you would call the reporter a "reliable"
>source!
I should have known you'd jump in with your two cents. Are you
stroking with graham to the left or the right today? Normally,
no. But it's not one reporter. If it was one person, I'd ignore
it.. but since he's been pulling this shit for some time now,
It's begun to annoy me.
>Perhaps if it was of interest to anyone but you, they might
>print it. I doubt they'd print anything on their website to
>satisfy one person, unless that one persona had a legal claim
>that could cost them a ton of money.
I don't have to sue them to cost them a ton of money. A simple
DDoS attack will accomplish that. If yahoo.com can go offline,
what makes you think sophos.com can't be taken offline?
and heh, what makes you think I didn't participate in those DDoS?
Ahh randy, a foolish person you are. If I want to 0wn sophos, I
can. You think just because of the legality aspect of things that
you and others can walk all over people like me, print lies about
us and expect no retribution... Heh, the times they are a
changing.
I think the net is a wonderful new frontier, More then one way to
skin a cat. Or in this case, a bastard av company.
>I guess that depends on how you define "spread". There are those
>who would say that if you wrote it and let it go, you spread it.
Nope. I did write it, and I placed it on a website. thats a far
cry from "raid has been distributing the virus in the guise of a
cellphone cloning appliction according to Graham Cluely of
sophos". See randy? Bullshit.. I didn't spread toadie, I placed
it on a single website (and that's not illegal).
But telling outright bullshit about someone is probably not too
swift.
>Because you're the only person on this planet that cares what
>they said?
As I said before, if sophos.com ceases to exist, will anybody
care? It works both ways.
>Yee Haw, now we're getting somewhere. If it is legally damaging,
>and not true (fucking or otherwise), then SUE THEM. Come on,
>quit hining and do something. Y
sue them? that would take a very long time, and whoever can
outlast the other would win. No, this is the new age. the age of
the information terrorist or whatever your buzzword for people
like me today is. Perhaps it's time people like me act on your
fears, and do some serious damage to the corporations on the net.
One DDoS (with several major commercial sites going down) didn't
sink this into your skull. I'll see if I can't adjust it for you.
You bastards need to learn that you can't just say bullshit and
expect to get away with it.
>Eventually it would be water under the bridge to them as well.
LoL, yep when I'm sure they aren't taking orders or able to
assist customers via the website.
>In the meantime You may have hit upon a free trip to the UK.
>Check with our local legal library for extradition details, you
>wouldn't want to lose this trip due to a technicality.
Isn't likely to happen. Hit and run DDoS happens often. I could
be eating lunch from one place, and sophos remaining offline due
to a telnet session I opened days before from another physical
location. Gawd damn, I love the net.
Maybe if people like me start hitting antivirus and security
related sites known for bullshit, you people might change your
policies a little bit, or go out of business. I think i'd rather
see you go under.
>Make him, Raid. Take him to court. I think it's time for you to
>put up or shut up. You can sling it with the best of them, now
>back it up.
Your right randy. Perhaps I should stop talking about it, and
just Do it! (nikey commercial) maybe I will... soon....
Who knows what will happen? <EG>
>Yeah, we know, weed, termite, toadie, etc...
LOL! No idiot, I wasn't even talking about those. I was talking
about other things. Virusing a company is shit today. It costs
them alot more to disable their net feed then it would to virus
them.
Think about it this way before you reply with a wiseass comment
randy,
Many antivirus sites welcome customers to get their dat files
from them, check up on latest virus threats. If I were to take
that away from a couple of major players for... 2 weeks (just 2
weeks) the amount of lost money resulting might be sufficient to
sink a smaller company, or put them damn close to sinking.
Is what I plan making sense now Randy ol pal? :)
>Some people will do anything to hear Big Ben .
And some people assume they will be caught for their activities.
Such and ignorant viewpoint you display randy.
>BTW Raid, I'm not threatening you with anything. Just a few
>words of wisdom for you...When a Chihuahua barks, people hear it
>and get nnoyed.
LOL. I guess we'll see soon won't we? <G>
sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk
soho20N...@hotmail.com.invalid (Raid Slam) wrote:
> But it's not one reporter. If it was one person, I'd ignore
> it.. but since he's been pulling this shit for some time now,
> It's begun to annoy me.
We need a list of names. So far I've heard the name Will Knight of ZD Net
mentioned in regard to an article. Who are the others?
Randy Abrams
Raid Slam <soho20N...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
<snip>
> And some people assume they will be caught for their activities.
> Such and ignorant viewpoint you display randy.
>
Have a good life Raid.
sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk
soho20N...@hotmail.com.invalid (Raid Slam) wrote:
> In article <8attnb$7sc$1...@plutonium.compulink.co.uk>,
> sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
> >Certainly not.
>
> Oh. I'm glad you can be clear on something. It's so hard to
> directly ask you anything without you attempting to twist it
> around, bastard.
Eh? I've always been clear on this. Your virus infected the Austrian
office of a multinational. Where's your confusion?
> >Your Toadie virus did indeed infect the Austrian office of a
> >multinational organisation one weekend.
>
> Great! I hope it caused them alot of problems.
> And your welcome to tell them I said so.
Why do you hope a multinational organisation had lots of problems with a
virus you wrote? I'm unclear as to what satisfaction you are gaining out
of an (unknown to you) company being infected by one of your viruses.
Please try and explain it to us, so we can better understand.
Maybe once we understand your motivation we can find an alternative way
for you to be satisfied, rather than writing destructive in the wild
viruses.