Are we overprotecting ourselves?
ghelf
reimage their hard drive and thus get rid of any garbage that might have
gotten in. The idea was promptly shot down as a dumb one. It was pointed out
all your updates would also disappear in the process. I assume he kept all
his data files in a separate location.
Now with computers dedicating a larger & larger portion of their computing
power and hard drive space to handling the problem of malware I wonder if
reimaging should have a second look. Does your kids computer really need
Norton 360 or McAfee? How many times my kids call me to say their computer
isn't responding when in fact it was just a virus scan going on in the
background. I could reimage the drive in half the time it took to perform a
scan. What are your thoughts on this.
Leythos
gh...@sbcglobalDeathToSpam.net says...
If the image is clean, if you restore it each time you boot, if you
always shutdown when done with the computer, then you can be reasonably
safe right after you boot up with the restored image, but once you go
online or fetch email, or check IM, there is no real hope.
If you install software after you boot up, how do you know that the
system is clean when you make a new image for later restore?
If you're not going to run AV/Anti-Malware then don't buy a computer.
--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam9...@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Leythos
>
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:33:31 -0500,
> Leythos trembling with fear and piss running down his leg wrote:
>
> > but once you go
> >online or fetch email, or check IM, there is no real hope.
>
No, just realistic from thousands of experiences across business and
residential platforms.
> >If you install software after you boot up, how do you know that the
> >system is clean when you make a new image for later restore?
>
> You don't, so just toss the confusing thing,
> it's only part of the devil's plan to confound the masses anyway.
What's the point of having a computer if you can't install anything on
it? If you're going to install things on it, how do you know if they
contain malware unless you also run malware.
> >If you're not going to run AV/Anti-Malware then don't buy a computer.
>
> But, but, I've already got one, runs great,
> no "AV/Anti-Malware" clogging up the system.
And I have dozens of computers, all running anti-virus/malware products,
and I see no performance difference in normal use between installed and
not installed.
> ...and other than wry amusement, there's no need to read this forum of
> nymshit losers as they whine and snivel in childish ways.
Why do you contribute as a nymshit losers as you whine and snivel in
your childish ways.
noauth
"Leythos" <spam9...@rrohio.com> wrote:
> In article <pan.2009.11...@cdc.gov>, staring@my_hd.tv says...
>>
>> nymshit losers as they whine and snivel in childish ways.
>
> Why do you contribute as a nymshit losers as you whine and snivel in
> your childish ways.
Because he's an unimportant whining sniveling nymshit loser trying
to pretend he's an important whining sniveling nymshit loser. Big
Head Syndrome to the max. (It plays well alongside his Small Dick
Syndrome.)
FromTheRafters
news:OvKdnZKLmZjm9W3X...@giganews.com...
>A while back someone suggusted that to protect oneself they could just
>reimage their hard drive and thus get rid of any garbage that might
>have gotten in.
That's true, but it isn't "protection" as much as it is "recovery" after
the fact.
> The idea was promptly shot down as a dumb one. It was pointed out all
> your updates would also disappear in the process. I assume he kept all
> his data files in a separate location.
The idea is to keep a series of *recent* image backups so that updates
will also be backed up in the process. This lets you recover from disk
disasters as well as just to recover from malware infestations. It
should *not* be interpreted as a license to not otherwise "protect" your
system from malware.
> Now with computers dedicating a larger & larger portion of their
> computing power and hard drive space to handling the problem of
> malware I wonder if reimaging should have a second look.
Most of this computing power is used to alleviate the user from having
to use good practice. Most malware is easily avoided by using Brain1.0
and a good database. :o)
> Does your kids computer really need Norton 360 or McAfee?
No, adequate AV can be had for free. Much depends on the value you put
on the data that is being "protected".
> How many times my kids call me to say their computer isn't responding
> when in fact it was just a virus scan going on in the background. I
> could reimage the drive in half the time it took to perform a scan.
> What are your thoughts on this.
Allowing the computer to run connected to the internet with active
malware, would be irresponsible.
Sure, you would have an easy recovery - but what has transpired *during*
the session?
Your computer could have participated in a distributed denial of service
attack against an internet backbone.
Your computer could have sent keylogger logs to an attacker.
The bottom line is that all malware has one commonality - they "steal"
computing power. Concentrating solely on recovery doesn't address this
issue at all - other than keeping them from persisting between sessions.
FromTheRafters
news:pan.2009.11...@cdc.gov...
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:33:31 -0500,
> Leythos trembling with fear and piss running down his leg wrote:
>
>>online or fetch email, or check IM, there is no real hope.
>
But correct.
Computers have become communications devices - all those scenarios
result in your computer consuming data from without.
>>If you install software after you boot up, how do you know that the
>>system is clean when you make a new image for later restore?
>
> You don't, so just toss the confusing thing,
> it's only part of the devil's plan to confound the masses anyway.
Not at all, this is why a series of images is better.
...of course there *is* the chance that malware could lay low long
enough to get deep into the series, so some known clean ones are good to
keep 'un-updated' as well.
[...]
The Central Scrutinizer
news:pan.2009.11...@cdc.gov...
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:33:31 -0500,
> Leythos trembling with fear and piss running down his leg wrote:
>
>>online or fetch email, or check IM, there is no real hope.
>
But as others have said, it is the correct one. What is your
problem??
>>If you install software after you boot up, how do you know that the
>>system is clean when you make a new image for later restore?
>
> You don't, so just toss the confusing thing,
> it's only part of the devil's plan to confound the masses anyway.
Could be!
>>If you're not going to run AV/Anti-Malware then don't buy a computer.
>
> But, but, I've already got one, runs great,
> no "AV/Anti-Malware" clogging up the system.
> ...and other than wry amusement, there's no need to read this forum of
> nymshit losers as they whine and snivel in childish ways.
OK awesome. I expect to never read another post from you. Cool.
> Say, it's already a new month and short of some logic bomb going off,
> I'm wondering what the mail2news gang (you know, hebe and the dweebs)
> has in store for entertainment.
>
> bring it, bitches
No problem at all. Your attempts at any retort were pretty lame.
"This is the CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER...it is my responsibility to enforce
all the laws that haven't been passed yet. It is also my responsibility to
alert
each and every one of you to the potential consequences of various ordinary
everyday activities you might be performing which could eventually lead to
*The Death Penalty* (or affect your parents' credit rating). Our criminal
institutions are full of little creeps like you who do wrong things...and
many
of them were driven to these crimes by a horrible force called MUSIC!"
--
Anonymous
From: "ASCII" <m...@pervacy.net>
> Toxic wrote:
>>
>>bring it, bitches
|
| > That's a pretty bold stroke there "T"
| don't you know some rilly badboi types hang out here?
And even you, a rilly bad pedboi type.
How is TheApostle these days? Still your personal
fudge-packer?
FromTheRafters
news:hjg8jf$kag$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:29:28 -0800, ghelf wrote:
>
>> What are your thoughts on this.
>
> answer.
Not really. Much of today's malware exploits human nature not flaws in
the underlying OS architecture.
It was once thought that user education was the answer to 'the malware
problem', but users refused to be educated. So, now we have programs
that they can run to "protect themselves" while doing all of the stupid
things they've become accustomed to.
Dustin Cook
news:hjgc0c$45l$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:00:08 -0500, FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> Not really. Much of today's malware exploits human nature not flaws
>> in the underlying OS architecture.
>
> But it all exploits Windows based software. Why? Because of the nature
> of the beast. Windows is easy to exploit because it's made to be easy
> to exploit. With Linux, it's not so simple. Getting away from using
> Windows was the best decision I ever made.
The malware exploits what the majority of users use. Some of it was
vulnerable windows software, other aspects of infection was user ignorance.
Linux won't cure the 2nd problem. It's like mac vs pc. if enough people
used mac, it too would have widespread malware written for it.
--
"Is there anything in Guul Draz that doesn't suck the life out of you?"
- Tarsa, Sea Gate sell-sword.
FromTheRafters
"Dustin Cook" <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D0A209C2D1...@69.16.185.247...
> Bill <sendsp...@mailinator.com> wrote in
> news:hjgc0c$45l$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:00:08 -0500, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>
>>> Not really. Much of today's malware exploits human nature not flaws
>>> in the underlying OS architecture.
>>
>> But it all exploits Windows based software.
No, most of it exploits the *users* of Windows based software.
> Why? Because of the nature of the beast.
That nature being that it is the most popular operating system software.
> Windows is easy to exploit because it's made to be easy to exploit.
Historically true perhaps for the home desktop versions especially.
Win9x had almost no filesystem security, and 'brain-dead' default
configuration settings.
> With Linux, it's not so simple. Getting away from using
>> Windows was the best decision I ever made.
Can't argue with that. I like Linux and the whole 'free software' and
'open source' realm.
> The malware exploits what the majority of users use. Some of it was
> vulnerable windows software, other aspects of infection was user
> ignorance.
> Linux won't cure the 2nd problem. It's like mac vs pc. if enough
> people
> used mac, it too would have widespread malware written for it.
People who post "Linux (or Mac) is the answer" posts are only showing
that they misunderstand the malware problem. As you say, a major shift
in what OS most users use will result in a major shift in what software
malware writers target.
Ant
> But it all exploits Windows based software. Why? Because of the nature
> of the beast.
Because it has the largest installed base and therefore gives the best
return.
> Windows is easy to exploit because it's made to be easy to exploit.
Nonesense. It's the mass of computer-illiterate users who are being
exploited.
> With Linux, it's not so simple.
Yah think? I hope you follow bugtraq. There are as many, if not more,
software vulnerabilities posted for Linux distributions as Windows.
> Getting away from using Windows was the best decision I ever made.
You can bet that if Linux overtook Windows as the popular choice of
the general public it would be the prime target of malware.
By the way, this thread is nearly 3 months old.
FromTheRafters
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:15:58 -0500, FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> People who post "Linux (or Mac) is the answer" posts are only showing
>> that they misunderstand the malware problem. As you say, a major
>> shift
>> in what OS most users use will result in a major shift in what
>> software
>> malware writers target.
>
Duh! Nobody said it was.
> While malware writers may have a field day on Mac
> software, trying to execute malware on a Linux box is not such an easy
> task. None of that click and go bullshit.
Is it really that hard to run an application on Linux?
I never had any trouble doing so.
FromTheRafters
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:08:35 +0000, Dustin Cook wrote:
>
>> The malware exploits what the majority of users use.
>
> compiling software from source code stored in a repository.
Not really harder, it is just different.
David Kaye
>Linux is far more security conscious. Hard to get a virus when your
>compiling software from source code stored in a repository.
However, I just picked up malware (a variant of Antivirus 2010) via a Linux
hosted website. It was a Javascript embedded in a PDF file. Apparently there
is still a vulnerability in Acrobat Reader that allows this junk to be
installed on a computer. Had a devil of a time removing it last night.
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> Bill <sendsp...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> Linux is far more security conscious. Hard to get a virus when your
>> compiling software from source code stored in a repository.
>
> However, I just picked up malware (a variant of Antivirus 2010) via a
> Linux hosted website. It was a Javascript embedded in a PDF file.
Why would you mention it was a Linux web host? That has nothing to do
with a PDF file some webmaster put there for you to download. The same
thing would have happened if the host was a Microsoft IIS host. Or
Solaris ... or ...
--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
George Orwell
"Bill Blevins" <former.pai...@masturbator.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:15:58 -0500, FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> People who post "Linux (or Mac) is the answer" posts are only showing
>> that they misunderstand the malware problem. As you say, a major shift
>> in what OS most users use will result in a major shift in what software
>> malware writers target.
>
> task. None of that click and go bullshit.
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
Ant
> However, I just picked up malware (a variant of Antivirus 2010) via a Linux
> hosted website. It was a Javascript embedded in a PDF file. Apparently there
> is still a vulnerability in Acrobat Reader that allows this junk to be
> installed on a computer.
I thought Adobe had caught up with patching the recent vulnerabilities
unless this is another new one or you're using a different reader. I'd
like to see that PDF.
In any case, with so much malware targetting such browser plugins, you
shouldn't allow it to automatically render PDFs or allow them to run
embedded script.
David Kaye
>Why would you mention it was a Linux web host? That has nothing to do
>with a PDF file some webmaster put there for you to download.
Why did the machine allow an infected pdf to be transferred?
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> Why would you mention it was a Linux web host? That has nothing to
>> do with a PDF file some webmaster put there for you to download.
>
> Why did the machine allow an infected pdf to be transferred?
See my detailed answer in the other thread you also posed the question:
"Windroids without a life" in alt.comp.anti-virus
Dustin Cook
@news.eternal-september.org:
C'mon. It's really not upto the server imho, whether a file or whatever
should be monitored for things of that nature. In some cases, you don't
want the server doing anything aside from serving up material.