Fwd: VIRUS WARNING!
Rich Grise
There is a new virus. The code name is WORK. If you receive WORK from
your colleagues, your boss, via e-mail, or from anyone else, do not touch
it under any circumstances. This virus wipes out your private life
completely.
If you should happen to come in contact with this virus, take two friends
and go straight to the nearest bar. Order drinks immediately and after
three rounds, you will find that WORK has been completely deleted from
your system.
Forward this virus warning immediately to at least five friends. Should
you realize you do not have five friends, this means you are already
infected by this virus and WORK already controls your life. If this is
the case, go to the bar and stay until you make at least five friends.
Then retry.
I think I have five friends, but am not entirely positive, so I'm headed
for the bar anyway . . . it never hurts to be safe.
--
Cheers!
Rich
Genome
"Rich Grise" <rich...@example.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.09....@example.net...
God Damn you idiot!
Are you outing the Work virus?
Where's your permit?
This could become just slightly pernicious.
Where is our Woodgate now?
All is lost.
DNA
Michael A. Terrell
>
> God Damn you idiot!
>
> Are you outing the Work virus?
>
> Where's your permit?
>
> This could become just slightly pernicious.
>
> Where is our Woodgate now?
>
> All is lost.
>
> DNA
Rich Grise is the last person on earth that has to worry about being
infected by "Work". On the other hand, the "Screw off and bug the shit
out of people" virus hit him years ago.
--
Former professional electron wrangler.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Rich Grise
> Genome wrote:
>>
>> God Damn you idiot!
>>
>> Are you outing the Work virus?
>>
>> Where's your permit?
>>
>> This could become just slightly pernicious.
>>
>> Where is our Woodgate now?
>>
>> All is lost.
>>
>> DNA
>
> Rich Grise is the last person on earth that has to worry about being
> infected by "Work". On the other hand, the "Screw off and bug the shit
> out of people" virus hit him years ago.
Oh, come on, Michael. Are you joining the "J.T. & I Hate Rich Grise" fan
club?
Actually, that one fellow has been quite civil since I read him the riot
act.
(and, just FYI, the post that Genome responded to, which you've
conveniently snipped, was a _JOKE_. Sheesh!)
Thanks,
Rich
[and if anybody wants to rag on me for getting personal, I have a very
convenient safety exit - I have a sister named Jean Torgeson, who hates
me with more venom than I knew it was possible for one human to spew. :-) ]
Cheers!
Still me
Walter
It was called sober.
Luckily I keep my Norton 2005 up to date.
"Rich Grise" <rich...@example.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.09....@example.net...
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
"Walter" <l.jin...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:MDnge.74149$WI3.58755@attbi_s71...
>I just got a new one in an email a couple days ago, seemed to be fairly
>new. It was called sober.
> Luckily I keep my Norton 2005 up to date.
Duh. That only protects you against viruses they already know about. If
you happen to be one of the "lucky" ones who get the virus first, no
anti-virus software will effectively stop them 100%.
The best protection is to practice safe internetting, and use a firewall.
Hardware appliances provide more robust protection than software-only
firewalls. And don't forget that even the best firewalls are targets of
hacking.
Your final and most effective protection is regular and correctly protected
backups. Implementing a "double grandfather" system, and using common sense
about when and how to drop back is the best protection.
LLoyd
LLoyd
JeffM
>Hardware appliances provide more robust protection
>than software-only firewalls.
Do your hardware solutions do egress filtering?
Sir Jackery
Hmmm. Much of what you said isn't true at all. First of all, virus
protection software protects against malicious code being executed. Old
virus scanners would search files for a snippit (a unique signature) of
code and compare it to a database of known virus code. Modern scanners
will prohibit code of a questionable nature (for example non-OOP-based
polymorphism, modification of executable files by a third party program
upon running them, etc.). Hence virus scanners most definitely do protect
you against unknown virii.
As for your firewalls, hardware firewalls ARE NOT more robust than
software firewalls. Hardware firewalls have processors just like those in
our every day computers, except slower. I have been a network administrator
for a long time and always program Linux routers for use as comprehensive
firewalls because they are much more powerful and robust than hardware
alternatives like Cisco. Now, if you are talking about windows based
firewalls, that's a different story (-: Kernel based firewalls on UNIX
systems are far more powerful than Cisco (and other) appliances because
you can install them on faster platforms and modify their code to more
intimately suit your needs. It really pisses me off how Cisco has
brainwashed everyone into thinking that hardware appliances do something
unique. I've replaced hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of Cisco
equipment with old 486 and Pentium machines that not only out-perform the
hardware appliances, but have more powerful features. Not to mention when
your hardware appliance breaks you can't simply take the hard drive out
and put it into a new one (-:
A firewall is not going to protect you from malicious code (IE a virus).
Firewalls simply filter all packets passing through them. They can choose
what to do with packets from a whole bunch of options, they can drop,
deny, allow, forward, etc. End users do not need firewalls, they serve
them absolutely no purpose. People who host services on the Internet need
firewalls because they need to be able to control things like allowing FTP
access on their local network but denying it publicly. If all of your
ports are closed on your system (IE you aren't running any internet
servers) you are not susceptible to attack. I suspect that the reason end
users think that they need firewalls is because companies making silly end
user firewalls like Norton security and zone alarm have convinced people
that their software is useful.
Your best defense as an end user is to make sure all your ports are closed
(scan.sygate.com/quickscan.html), run a good up to date virus protection
program like Norton, and to listen to Lloyd and practice safe sensible
internetting.
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
"JeffM" <jef...@email.com> wrote in message
news:1115842884.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
'Pends on the make and the setup configuration. There are a range of
capabilities available from multi-K$ Ciscos to little $300 Watchguard
Fireboxes.
LLoyd
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
"Sir Jackery" <ro...@jackery.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.05051...@nocase.jackery.com...
>
>>
> Hmmm. Much of what you said isn't true at all. First of all, virus
> protection software protects against malicious code being executed. Old
> virus scanners would search files for a snippit (a unique signature) of
> code and compare it to a database of known virus code. Modern scanners
> will prohibit code of a questionable nature (for example non-OOP-based
> polymorphism, modification of executable files by a third party program
> upon running them, etc.). Hence virus scanners most definitely do protect
> you against unknown virii.
Just like McAfee protected against those eight or nine consecutive virii
that attacked McAfee specifically? Mmmmm?
>
> As for your firewalls, hardware firewalls ARE NOT more robust than
> software firewalls. Hardware firewalls have processors just like those in
> our every day computers, except slower. I have been a network
> administrator
> for a long time and always program Linux routers for use as comprehensive
> firewalls because they are much more powerful and robust than hardware
> alternatives like Cisco.
You're talking about a hardware appliance when you dedicate a machine to
firewall duty, now, aren't you? I've written kernel code for Slackware,
Redhat, FreeBSD, SCO, AIX, and Cromix. I know of what you speak. But a
computer dedicated to the specific function of being a firewall is a
hardware firewall -- doesn't matter a bit what kind of paint they put on the
box.
Now, if you are talking about windows based
> firewalls, that's a different story
I was... that's what most non-computing types think of as "software
firewalls".
(-: Kernel based firewalls on UNIX
> systems are far more powerful than Cisco (and other) appliances because
> you can install them on faster platforms and modify their code to more
> intimately suit your needs. It really pisses me off how Cisco has
> brainwashed everyone into thinking that hardware appliances do something
> unique. I've replaced hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of Cisco
> equipment with old 486 and Pentium machines that not only out-perform the
> hardware appliances, but have more powerful features. Not to mention when
> your hardware appliance breaks you can't simply take the hard drive out
> and put it into a new one (-:'
No disagreement, there.
>
> A firewall is not going to protect you from malicious code (IE a virus).
> Firewalls simply filter all packets passing through them. They can choose
> what to do with packets from a whole bunch of options, they can drop,
> deny, allow, forward, etc. End users do not need firewalls, they serve
> them absolutely no purpose. People who host services on the Internet need
> firewalls because they need to be able to control things like allowing FTP
> access on their local network but denying it publicly. If all of your
> ports are closed on your system (IE you aren't running any internet
> servers) you are not susceptible to attack. I suspect that the reason end
> users think that they need firewalls is because companies making silly end
> user firewalls like Norton security and zone alarm have convinced people
> that their software is useful.
But with authentication and adequate spoofing, they make your network almost
invisible to the outside world. With additional "front-end" virus checking,
they do a better job than desktop regnant virus checkers that scan only
after the code is in your machine. But I agree that even the best aren't
impervious. A new IPsec vulnerability just showed up around netville this
week that allows DES encrypted, but un-authenticated VPN tunnels to be
compromised by an intermediate routing node.
> Your best defense as an end user is to make sure all your ports are closed
> (scan.sygate.com/quickscan.html), run a good up to date virus protection
> program like Norton, and to listen to Lloyd and practice safe sensible
> internetting.
AND...rotate your most recent backups off-premises.
LLoyd
Sir Jackery
I guess that is really open to interpretation.
<snipped for brevity>
>
>
> AND...rotate your most recent backups off-premises.
>
> LLoyd
We're pretty much on the same page then (-; What kind of kernel code have
you written?
Mark Fergerson
<snip>
> Your best defense as an end user is to make sure all your ports are closed
> (scan.sygate.com/quickscan.html), run a good up to date virus protection
> program like Norton, and to listen to Lloyd and practice safe sensible
> internetting.
Hopeless newb questions:
I use Norton and ZoneAlarm, and as you can see connect through
Cox.net. I went to the recommended site and everything returned
"BLOCKED". Was that because my software works, or because Cox does
all the heavy lifting?
Mark L. Fergerson
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
> We're pretty much on the same page then (-; What kind of kernel code have
> you written?
>
>
Mostly drivers. I was heavily into augmenting hardware support on AIX (for
our own proprietary hardware) when I, uh, "retired" from the computer
business.
LLoyd
Sir Jackery
On Thu, 12 May 2005, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
What kind of hardware? I'm always interested in meeting fellow UNIX
enthusiasts (-:
-jackery
www.jackerypyro.com
Sir Jackery
Could be either or. A lot of times cable/dsl users connect through a
router that denies all incoming access to the lower port range. Try
turning off your software firewall and see if they are still blocked (-:
-jackery
www.jackerypyro.com
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
"Sir Jackery" <ro...@jackery.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.05051...@nocase.jackery.com...
>> (for
>> our own proprietary hardware) when I, uh, "retired" from the computer
>> business.
>>
>> LLoyd
>
> What kind of hardware? I'm always interested in meeting fellow UNIX
> enthusiasts (-:
Most of my career was spent designing proprietary interfaces for "oddball"
printers (like the GE Terminet series) and SDLC/HDLC/BiSYNC communications
controllers.
Once we had committed financially to using those devices, and we switched
from Point4 IRIS to various 'IXs, I had to develop drivers to talk to the
boards.
My software origins are in writing various disk operating systems and
modifying the kernel and BIOS of CP/M. This started back when the only mass
storage you could buy for small computers was the old Sugart SA-801
single-sided, single-density 8" floppies (at a whopping 241K per disk).
I implemented Linux as a web server running Apache back when the only way
you could get the Slackware distribution was on floppies!
Diff'r'nt world, now!
LLoyd
LLoyd
Mark Fergerson
>
> On Thu, 12 May 2005, Mark Fergerson wrote:
>>Sir Jackery wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Your best defense as an end user is to make sure all your ports are closed
>>>(scan.sygate.com/quickscan.html), run a good up to date virus protection
>>>program like Norton, and to listen to Lloyd and practice safe sensible
>>>internetting.
>>
>> Hopeless newb questions:
>>
>> I use Norton and ZoneAlarm, and as you can see connect through
>>Cox.net. I went to the recommended site and everything returned
>>"BLOCKED". Was that because my software works, or because Cox does
>>all the heavy lifting?
> Could be either or. A lot of times cable/dsl users connect through a
> router that denies all incoming access to the lower port range.
That's roughtly what I thought I'd heard, which is why I asked.
> Try
> turning off your software firewall and see if they are still blocked (-:
Ummm... no, thanks.
Mark L. Fergerson
Sir Jackery
I too installed slackware from floppies (-: It was my first experience
with anything *NIX like. But the 8" floppies were behind my time.
Interesting career,
jackery
www.jackerypyro.com
Rikard Bosnjakovic
> The best protection is to practice safe internetting, and use a firewall.
> Hardware appliances provide more robust protection than software-only
> firewalls. And don't forget that even the best firewalls are targets of
> hacking.
Yup. Safe 'netting using your brains and precautions is the way to go. And
use applications that ain't the targets for those zillions of attacks.
I've been on the net since 1996 and haven't been infected with a virus,
ever. The only thing that strucked me was the "teardrop"-attack way back
in 1997. Other than that, clean as a baby.
--
Rikard Bosnjakovic http://bos.hack.org/cv/
Anyone sending unwanted advertising e-mail to my address will be
charged $250 for network traffic and computing time. By extracting
address from this message or its header, you agree to these terms.
Rich The Newsgroup Wacko
> Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
>
>> The best protection is to practice safe internetting, and use a firewall.
>> Hardware appliances provide more robust protection than software-only
>> firewalls. And don't forget that even the best firewalls are targets of
>> hacking.
>
> Yup. Safe 'netting using your brains and precautions is the way to go. And
> use applications that ain't the targets for those zillions of attacks.
>
> I've been on the net since 1996 and haven't been infected with a virus,
> ever. The only thing that strucked me was the "teardrop"-attack way back
> in 1997. Other than that, clean as a baby.
You've obviously never changed a diaper. (Ewwww!)
--
Cheers!
Rich
------
"But they'll never mechanize me -- not me! Said Charlotte, the Louisville
harlot."
-- S.I. Hayakawa"
Alan Yates
I still use Slackware on all my machines, this one I am using now
included. I can't stand RPM style package management, however Debian
really wants me to leave Slack land! Nah I'll probably use Slack as
long as it exists.
Why the hell is this cross-posted to so many groups anyway?
--
Alan Yates
http://www.vk2zay.net/
The Moon is Waxing Crescent (44% of Full)
Sir Jackery
On Sun, 15 May 2005, Alan Yates wrote:
> Yeah I too installed Slack for the first time that way.
>
> I still use Slackware on all my machines, this one I am using now
> included. I can't stand RPM style package management, however Debian
> really wants me to leave Slack land! Nah I'll probably use Slack as
> long as it exists.
>
> Why the hell is this cross-posted to so many groups anyway?
>
rec.puzzles? (-:
Don't fall to the Debian world! And don't fall to (blech) package
management. Or better yet, lets design our own package manager. I find
that the best distribution is the one that is so heavily modified that it
becomes your own unique distro.
-jackery
www.jackerypyro.com
Rich Grise
> Yeah I too installed Slack for the first time that way.
>
> I still use Slackware on all my machines, this one I am using now
> included. I can't stand RPM style package management, however Debian
> really wants me to leave Slack land! Nah I'll probably use Slack as
> long as it exists.
>
> Why the hell is this cross-posted to so many groups anyway?
That would be my fault. The original post was supposed to be a JOKE!
Just in case your server has dropped it:
------------
Subject: VIRUS WARNING!!!!!
There is a new virus. The code name is WORK. If you receive WORK from
your colleagues, your boss, via e-mail, or from anyone else, do not touch
it under any circumstances. This virus wipes out your private life
completely.
If you should happen to come in contact with this virus, take two friends
and go straight to the nearest bar. Order drinks immediately and after
three rounds, you will find that WORK has been completely deleted from
your system.
Forward this virus warning immediately to at least five friends. Should
you realize you do not have five friends, this means you are already
infected by this virus and WORK already controls your life. If this is
the case, go to the bar and stay until you make at least five friends.
Then retry.
I think I have five friends, but am not entirely positive, so I'm headed
for the bar anyway . . . it never hurts to be safe.
-------------
So I could say "I was only following orders". Since I don't have five
friends, I posted it to five newsgroups. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
There are Linux users (like me) who believe that the responsibility for
"Package Management" and "Dependency Checking" lie with the the Sys
Admin, not with the new software. :-)
I'm using Slack 10.0, but my first time, I actually downloaded the
whole thing. It only took a couple of days at 56K. :-) It was 2.something,
as I remember.
Cheers!
Rich