Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
If I release a C# executable, can some azz whole like Dustbin attach a virus to it?
37 views
Skip to first unread message
RayLopez99
Oct 14, 2012, 6:16:40 AM10/14/12
to
I'm thinking to release a C# .NET 4 Framework freeware program executable to Usenet. I will run the executable through one of those programs through an MD5 hash function generators to generate a checksum.
Some questions
1/ nothwithstanding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD5 and apparently the MD5 checksum is broken, I think for most small scale non-commercial routine freeware purposes the MD5 method is 'good enough' to guarantee security for a simple program like mine, which is nothing commercial and will simply calculate some chess scores. It's unlikely a sophisticated hacker (not Dustin mind you, I said sophisticated) will try and generate the same file signature with a virus attached. Agree?
2/ as it will be a C# program, I will run it through the 'Community Obfuscator' in Visual Studio 2010, but is there any way that somebody can reverse engineer the code and figure out what machine, or worse, which author, produced it? Because I also code with this same version of VS other commercial quality code under my real name? Does VS leave a serial number embedded in the IL (see: NET Framework intermediate language, http://www.dotnetperls.com/il)? But even if it does, I don't see how they would link this released freeware to my other stuff easily, though I'd hate for somebody to attach a virus to it then have people irate at the real me, thinking I did it.
3/ A good free site for anonymous public FTP and for attaching screenshots is? I know of a few places already but want others opinions. I wish to upload the program, with screenshots and a page of instructions. It's not a big program, so space is not an issue.
Thanks to all who reply. Yes Dave L. I will post this in another forum as well.
RL
Some questions
1/ nothwithstanding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD5 and apparently the MD5 checksum is broken, I think for most small scale non-commercial routine freeware purposes the MD5 method is 'good enough' to guarantee security for a simple program like mine, which is nothing commercial and will simply calculate some chess scores. It's unlikely a sophisticated hacker (not Dustin mind you, I said sophisticated) will try and generate the same file signature with a virus attached. Agree?
2/ as it will be a C# program, I will run it through the 'Community Obfuscator' in Visual Studio 2010, but is there any way that somebody can reverse engineer the code and figure out what machine, or worse, which author, produced it? Because I also code with this same version of VS other commercial quality code under my real name? Does VS leave a serial number embedded in the IL (see: NET Framework intermediate language, http://www.dotnetperls.com/il)? But even if it does, I don't see how they would link this released freeware to my other stuff easily, though I'd hate for somebody to attach a virus to it then have people irate at the real me, thinking I did it.
3/ A good free site for anonymous public FTP and for attaching screenshots is? I know of a few places already but want others opinions. I wish to upload the program, with screenshots and a page of instructions. It's not a big program, so space is not an issue.
Thanks to all who reply. Yes Dave L. I will post this in another forum as well.
RL
FromTheRafters
Oct 14, 2012, 2:03:50 PM10/14/12
to
RayLopez99 was thinking very hard :
the respect that one can simultaneously create two different programs
with the same digest. This is different from being able to create a
program that matches the digest of a preexisting program. IOW the
algorithm is attacked in such a way as to allow one to create a pair of
programs, perhaps one malignant and one benign, and put the benign one
'out there' to earn a good reputation for reputation based detectors -
and later putting the malignant one 'out there' to take advantage of
its digest being historically of good reputation.
[...]
> I'm thinking to release a C# .NET 4 Framework freeware program executable to
> Usenet. I will run the executable through one of those programs through an
> MD5 hash function generators to generate a checksum.
>
> Some questions
>
> 1/ nothwithstanding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD5 and apparently the MD5
> checksum is broken, I think for most small scale non-commercial routine
> freeware purposes the MD5 method is 'good enough' to guarantee security for a
> simple program like mine, which is nothing commercial and will simply
> calculate some chess scores. It's unlikely a sophisticated hacker (not
> Dustin mind you, I said sophisticated) will try and generate the same file
> signature with a virus attached. Agree?
I'm not sure, but I got the impression that MD5 was shown to be weak in
> Usenet. I will run the executable through one of those programs through an
> MD5 hash function generators to generate a checksum.
>
> Some questions
>
> 1/ nothwithstanding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD5 and apparently the MD5
> checksum is broken, I think for most small scale non-commercial routine
> freeware purposes the MD5 method is 'good enough' to guarantee security for a
> simple program like mine, which is nothing commercial and will simply
> calculate some chess scores. It's unlikely a sophisticated hacker (not
> Dustin mind you, I said sophisticated) will try and generate the same file
> signature with a virus attached. Agree?
the respect that one can simultaneously create two different programs
with the same digest. This is different from being able to create a
program that matches the digest of a preexisting program. IOW the
algorithm is attacked in such a way as to allow one to create a pair of
programs, perhaps one malignant and one benign, and put the benign one
'out there' to earn a good reputation for reputation based detectors -
and later putting the malignant one 'out there' to take advantage of
its digest being historically of good reputation.
[...]
Dustin
Oct 14, 2012, 7:28:36 PM10/14/12
to
RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:56d982f0-bfb7-4327...@googlegroups.com:
> I'm thinking to release a C# .NET 4 Framework freeware program
> executable to Usenet. I will run the executable through one of those
> programs through an MD5 hash function generators to generate a
> checksum.
Lame.. why .net? Not all of us like that shit you know. Some diehard
freeware users will avoid it because of the .net dependency bullshit you
forced upon them.
> Some questions
I won't answer any of them. Just taunt you a little. ;p troll for troll.
> It's unlikely a sophisticated hacker (not Dustin mind you, I said
> sophisticated) will try and generate the same file signature with a
> virus attached. Agree?
Have you learned how a prepender works yet? That's so funny reading
back, I'll ask again. Do you know how a prepender works yet?
It's still just as funny! :) Damn Ray, I wish you understood.
> 2/ as it will be a C# program, I will run it through the 'Community
> Obfuscator' in Visual Studio 2010, but is there any way that somebody
> can reverse engineer the code and figure out what machine, or worse,
> which author, produced it? Because I also code with this same
> version of VS other commercial quality code under my real name? Does
HAHAAHAHAHA...
This question I will answer; so you don't hand something over to me that
you probably don't wanna do. Yes. Your compiler will tag your work.
I don't know about commercial quality, from what I know of your
understanding of programming, it's quite pathetic. Hobbyist, maybe...
> 3/ A good free site for anonymous public FTP and for attaching
> screenshots is? I know of a few places already but want others
> opinions. I wish to upload the program, with screenshots and a page
> of instructions. It's not a big program, so space is not an issue.
You're a millionaire.. or so you've said. why leech somebody elses shit?
Buy your own server, you bum.
> Thanks to all who reply. Yes Dave L. I will post this in another
> forum as well.
Anybody who does reply with helpful answers to you at this point is an
idiot and deserves whatever punishment you give them. I might even join
you. :)
--
There ain't no rest for the wicked. Money don't grow on trees. I got
bills to pay. I got mouths to feed. Ain't nothing in this world for
free. Oh No. I can't slow down, I can't hold back though you know I wish
I could. Oh no there ain't no rest for the wicked, until we close our
eyes for good.
news:56d982f0-bfb7-4327...@googlegroups.com:
> I'm thinking to release a C# .NET 4 Framework freeware program
> executable to Usenet. I will run the executable through one of those
> programs through an MD5 hash function generators to generate a
> checksum.
freeware users will avoid it because of the .net dependency bullshit you
forced upon them.
> Some questions
I won't answer any of them. Just taunt you a little. ;p troll for troll.
> It's unlikely a sophisticated hacker (not Dustin mind you, I said
> sophisticated) will try and generate the same file signature with a
> virus attached. Agree?
back, I'll ask again. Do you know how a prepender works yet?
It's still just as funny! :) Damn Ray, I wish you understood.
> 2/ as it will be a C# program, I will run it through the 'Community
> Obfuscator' in Visual Studio 2010, but is there any way that somebody
> can reverse engineer the code and figure out what machine, or worse,
> which author, produced it? Because I also code with this same
> version of VS other commercial quality code under my real name? Does
This question I will answer; so you don't hand something over to me that
you probably don't wanna do. Yes. Your compiler will tag your work.
I don't know about commercial quality, from what I know of your
understanding of programming, it's quite pathetic. Hobbyist, maybe...
> 3/ A good free site for anonymous public FTP and for attaching
> screenshots is? I know of a few places already but want others
> opinions. I wish to upload the program, with screenshots and a page
> of instructions. It's not a big program, so space is not an issue.
Buy your own server, you bum.
> Thanks to all who reply. Yes Dave L. I will post this in another
> forum as well.
idiot and deserves whatever punishment you give them. I might even join
you. :)
--
There ain't no rest for the wicked. Money don't grow on trees. I got
bills to pay. I got mouths to feed. Ain't nothing in this world for
free. Oh No. I can't slow down, I can't hold back though you know I wish
I could. Oh no there ain't no rest for the wicked, until we close our
eyes for good.
RayLopez99
Oct 15, 2012, 9:10:24 AM10/15/12
to
On Monday, October 15, 2012 2:28:37 AM UTC+3, Dustin wrote:
> RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
>
> > Some questions
>
>
>
> I won't answer any of them. Just taunt you a little. ;p troll for troll.
>
>
But you did answer, below. So you lied here, or are inconsistent.
>
> > It's unlikely a sophisticated hacker (not Dustin mind you, I said
>
> > sophisticated) will try and generate the same file signature with a
>
> > virus attached. Agree?
>
>
>
> Have you learned how a prepender works yet? That's so funny reading
>
> back, I'll ask again. Do you know how a prepender works yet?
>
Why don't you tell me what it is, and how it's relevant to a .NET program?
>
> > 2/ as it will be a C# program, I will run it through the 'Community
>
> > Obfuscator' in Visual Studio 2010, but is there any way that somebody
>
> > can reverse engineer the code and figure out what machine, or worse,
>
> > which author, produced it? Because I also code with this same
>
> > version of VS other commercial quality code under my real name? Does
>
>
>
> HAHAAHAHAHA...
>
> This question I will answer; so you don't hand something over to me that
>
> you probably don't wanna do. Yes. Your compiler will tag your work.
>
>
No, the consensus (from another thread) is that Visual Studio IL compiled programs do not leave a Serial Number embedded in the IL. I too find that hard to believe but that's what people are saying. If you have different information please let's hear it, but I think you're smoke blowing, as usual.
>
> I don't know about commercial quality, from what I know of your
>
> understanding of programming, it's quite pathetic. Hobbyist, maybe...
>
Or maybe you're using one of the programs I wrote now...
>
>
>
>
> > 3/ A good free site for anonymous public FTP and for attaching
>
> > screenshots is? I know of a few places already but want others
>
> > opinions. I wish to upload the program, with screenshots and a page
>
> > of instructions. It's not a big program, so space is not an issue.
>
>
>
> You're a millionaire.. or so you've said. why leech somebody elses shit?
>
> Buy your own server, you bum.
Ha ha. Shows how stupid you are. Buying your own server and making it truly anonymous requires setting it up outside the USA. Too much work for a freeware release. Probably I'll just use FileSend and have anybody who wants it email me and I'll send them the FileSend link. Or I'll find one of these free webhosting accounts.
>
> Anybody who does reply with helpful answers to you at this point is an
>
> idiot and deserves whatever punishment you give them. I might even join
>
> you. :)
Well your answers were not helpful, they were flat out wrong, and you are an idiot.
RL
> RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> > I'm thinking to release a C# .NET 4 Framework freeware program
>
> > executable to Usenet. I will run the executable through one of those
>
> > programs through an MD5 hash function generators to generate a
>
> > checksum.
>
>
>
> Lame.. why .net? Not all of us like that shit you know. Some diehard
>
> freeware users will avoid it because of the .net dependency bullshit you
>
> forced upon them.
>
The question was on MD5. The answer (from another post) is SHA-1 is superior. As for the .NET framework, it comes built into Windows 7. You are out of touch, once again.
> > I'm thinking to release a C# .NET 4 Framework freeware program
>
> > executable to Usenet. I will run the executable through one of those
>
> > programs through an MD5 hash function generators to generate a
>
> > checksum.
>
>
>
> Lame.. why .net? Not all of us like that shit you know. Some diehard
>
> freeware users will avoid it because of the .net dependency bullshit you
>
> forced upon them.
>
>
>
> > Some questions
>
>
>
> I won't answer any of them. Just taunt you a little. ;p troll for troll.
>
>
>
> > It's unlikely a sophisticated hacker (not Dustin mind you, I said
>
> > sophisticated) will try and generate the same file signature with a
>
> > virus attached. Agree?
>
>
>
> Have you learned how a prepender works yet? That's so funny reading
>
> back, I'll ask again. Do you know how a prepender works yet?
>
>
> > 2/ as it will be a C# program, I will run it through the 'Community
>
> > Obfuscator' in Visual Studio 2010, but is there any way that somebody
>
> > can reverse engineer the code and figure out what machine, or worse,
>
> > which author, produced it? Because I also code with this same
>
> > version of VS other commercial quality code under my real name? Does
>
>
>
> HAHAAHAHAHA...
>
> This question I will answer; so you don't hand something over to me that
>
> you probably don't wanna do. Yes. Your compiler will tag your work.
>
>
>
> I don't know about commercial quality, from what I know of your
>
> understanding of programming, it's quite pathetic. Hobbyist, maybe...
>
>
>
>
>
> > 3/ A good free site for anonymous public FTP and for attaching
>
> > screenshots is? I know of a few places already but want others
>
> > opinions. I wish to upload the program, with screenshots and a page
>
> > of instructions. It's not a big program, so space is not an issue.
>
>
>
> You're a millionaire.. or so you've said. why leech somebody elses shit?
>
> Buy your own server, you bum.
>
> Anybody who does reply with helpful answers to you at this point is an
>
> idiot and deserves whatever punishment you give them. I might even join
>
> you. :)
RL
kurt wismer
Oct 15, 2012, 1:30:37 PM10/15/12
to
On Sunday, October 14, 2012 6:16:40 AM UTC-4, RayLopez99 wrote:
> I'm thinking to release a C# .NET 4 Framework freeware program executable to
> Usenet. I will run the executable through one of those programs through an
> MD5 hash function generators to generate a checksum.
>
> Some questions
>
> 1/ nothwithstanding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD5 and apparently the MD5
> checksum is broken, I think for most small scale non-commercial routine
> freeware purposes the MD5 method is 'good enough' to guarantee security for a
> simple program like mine, which is nothing commercial and will simply
> calculate some chess scores. It's unlikely a sophisticated hacker (not Dustin
> mind you, I said sophisticated) will try and generate the same file signature
> with a virus attached. Agree?
no, not really. there's virtually no added expense in selecting SHA1 over MD5, but there's quite a bit of added benefit. generating MD5 collisions is just too easy these days. choose a stronger hash.
> I'm thinking to release a C# .NET 4 Framework freeware program executable to
> Usenet. I will run the executable through one of those programs through an
> MD5 hash function generators to generate a checksum.
>
> Some questions
>
> 1/ nothwithstanding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD5 and apparently the MD5
> checksum is broken, I think for most small scale non-commercial routine
> freeware purposes the MD5 method is 'good enough' to guarantee security for a
> simple program like mine, which is nothing commercial and will simply
> calculate some chess scores. It's unlikely a sophisticated hacker (not Dustin
> mind you, I said sophisticated) will try and generate the same file signature
> with a virus attached. Agree?
> 2/ as it will be a C# program, I will run it through the 'Community
> Obfuscator' in Visual Studio 2010, but is there any way that somebody can
> reverse engineer the code and figure out what machine, or worse, which author,
> produced it? Because I also code with this same version of VS other
> commercial quality code under my real name? Does VS leave a serial number
> embedded in the IL (see: NET Framework intermediate language,
> http://www.dotnetperls.com/il)? But even if it does, I don't see how they
> would link this released freeware to my other stuff easily, though I'd hate
> for somebody to attach a virus to it then have people irate at the real me,
> thinking I did it.
if you're concerned that someone may be able to link the program you're planning to release to your professional software then maybe try not compiling it on the same machine or with the same tools. you can still develop the code where you're comfortable and then copy the source to a VM with a freeware .net compiler on it.
as for the virus angle, obfuscation won't prevent the file from getting infected, but publishing the hash of the legitimate file on an *authoritative* website can help mitigate that problem (basically a site that is the official source and the official hash and if someone has a version where the hash doesn't match that's not your fault)
> 3/ A good free site for anonymous public FTP and for attaching screenshots is? I
> know of a few places already but want others opinions. I wish to upload the
> program, with screenshots and a page of instructions. It's not a big program, so
> space is not an issue.
there are plenty of free web hosts that will also host files for download (not sure why you would want FTP). why not just use google (to host, i mean - though you could also use it to search for a host)?
James E. Morrow
Oct 15, 2012, 5:07:35 PM10/15/12
to
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:28:36 GMT, Dustin wrote:
> Have you learned how a prepender works yet? That's so funny reading
> back, I'll ask again. Do you know how a prepender works yet?
>
> It's still just as funny! :) Damn Ray, I wish you understood.
http://www.virusbtn.com/resources/glossary/prepender.xml
> Have you learned how a prepender works yet? That's so funny reading
> back, I'll ask again. Do you know how a prepender works yet?
>
> It's still just as funny! :) Damn Ray, I wish you understood.
Reading is FUNdamental. Over here in the peanut gallery we thing
this thread is a real hoot. Keep it up Dustin.
--
James E. Morrow Email to jamese...@email.com --
MICROSOFT ERROR
A Microsoft Error has occurred. All user data will be irretrievably
lost. Your Windows configuration is invalid. Windows will now close.
Thank you for using Microsoft, THE POWER OF INNOVATION.
RayLopez99
Oct 16, 2012, 12:27:05 PM10/16/12
to
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:07:53 AM UTC+3, James E. Morrow wrote:
> http://www.virusbtn.com/resources/glossary/prepender.xml
>
>
>
> Reading is FUNdamental. Over here in the peanut gallery we thing
>
> this thread is a real hoot. Keep it up Dustin.
>
Keep what up? His dick? That dropped off long ago. Prepender and DICKtionary definitions won't hide what Dustin does not know--and that's how to explain a simple assembly language program (even if he can copy and paste it from somewhere).
> http://www.virusbtn.com/resources/glossary/prepender.xml
>
>
>
> Reading is FUNdamental. Over here in the peanut gallery we thing
>
> this thread is a real hoot. Keep it up Dustin.
>
RL
Bear
Oct 16, 2012, 6:33:12 PM10/16/12
to
RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:05abd984-f5ee-4cf9...@googlegroups.com:
Ray I think your interesting questions have gone right over Dustin's head
and he's bluffing that he won't help when the truth is that he probably
can't! :)
Jax
--
Bear Bottoms
http://bearware.info
news:05abd984-f5ee-4cf9...@googlegroups.com:
and he's bluffing that he won't help when the truth is that he probably
can't! :)
Jax
--
Bear Bottoms
http://bearware.info
Dustin
Oct 16, 2012, 7:17:39 PM10/16/12
to
RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:05abd984-f5ee-4cf9...@googlegroups.com:
> The question was on MD5. The answer (from another post) is SHA-1 is
> superior. As for the .NET framework, it comes built into Windows 7.
> You are out of touch, once again.
It's NOT built into systems prior to windows 7. Don't assume idiot that
everyone is running the latest koolaid MS forces down peoples throats.
Not if you want to make it as a viable freeware author.
> But you did answer, below. So you lied here, or are inconsistent.
I was doing you a favor.
>> Have you learned how a prepender works yet? That's so funny reading
>>
>> back, I'll ask again. Do you know how a prepender works yet?
>>
>
> Why don't you tell me what it is, and how it's relevant to a .NET
> program?
It's one method which can be used to infect a .net executable. It's a
pretty solid infection technique. As your a .net programmer (hehehe..
okay), I thought that would be revelent to you.
I could tell you what it is, but in all reality, the word "prepender"
already does. But alas, you'd rather be a pita and troll; so I will
continue to taunt and have a little fun at your expense until you
smarten up. Pretty simple.
> No, the consensus (from another thread) is that Visual Studio IL
> compiled programs do not leave a Serial Number embedded in the IL. I
> too find that hard to believe but that's what people are saying. If
> you have different information please let's hear it, but I think
> you're smoke blowing, as usual.
They don't leave a serial number unless you're using 3rd party
registered libraries. However, your! programming style! DOES leave a
signature which could be identified and determine if your the same
person who wrote commercial program (a) vs the guy who wrote freeware
program (a).
> Or maybe you're using one of the programs I wrote now...
You didn't write Xnews. [g]. As most of the apps I use are of a rather
technical nature, I *know* you didn't write them either.
You can't tell me how a prepender virus works, so theres no way you
wrote any apps I use which process exe header information. [g]
> Ha ha. Shows how stupid you are. Buying your own server and making
> it truly anonymous requires setting it up outside the USA. Too much
> work for a freeware release. Probably I'll just use FileSend and
> have anybody who wants it email me and I'll send them the FileSend
> link. Or I'll find one of these free webhosting accounts.
You could always post it to various freeware sites. they'll scan it,
review it and even host it for you in some places. Shows how stupid I
am? Really? LOL. I disagree. And as long as you continue to be a
childish prick, I'll treat you as one.
> Well your answers were not helpful, they were flat out wrong, and you
> are an idiot.
All answers I give you that are right on the money, you will never
acknowledge. [g] So don't waste our time. We both know your full of
shit.
news:05abd984-f5ee-4cf9...@googlegroups.com:
> The question was on MD5. The answer (from another post) is SHA-1 is
> superior. As for the .NET framework, it comes built into Windows 7.
> You are out of touch, once again.
everyone is running the latest koolaid MS forces down peoples throats.
Not if you want to make it as a viable freeware author.
> But you did answer, below. So you lied here, or are inconsistent.
>> Have you learned how a prepender works yet? That's so funny reading
>>
>> back, I'll ask again. Do you know how a prepender works yet?
>>
>
> Why don't you tell me what it is, and how it's relevant to a .NET
> program?
pretty solid infection technique. As your a .net programmer (hehehe..
okay), I thought that would be revelent to you.
I could tell you what it is, but in all reality, the word "prepender"
already does. But alas, you'd rather be a pita and troll; so I will
continue to taunt and have a little fun at your expense until you
smarten up. Pretty simple.
> No, the consensus (from another thread) is that Visual Studio IL
> compiled programs do not leave a Serial Number embedded in the IL. I
> too find that hard to believe but that's what people are saying. If
> you have different information please let's hear it, but I think
> you're smoke blowing, as usual.
registered libraries. However, your! programming style! DOES leave a
signature which could be identified and determine if your the same
person who wrote commercial program (a) vs the guy who wrote freeware
program (a).
> Or maybe you're using one of the programs I wrote now...
technical nature, I *know* you didn't write them either.
You can't tell me how a prepender virus works, so theres no way you
wrote any apps I use which process exe header information. [g]
> Ha ha. Shows how stupid you are. Buying your own server and making
> it truly anonymous requires setting it up outside the USA. Too much
> work for a freeware release. Probably I'll just use FileSend and
> have anybody who wants it email me and I'll send them the FileSend
> link. Or I'll find one of these free webhosting accounts.
review it and even host it for you in some places. Shows how stupid I
am? Really? LOL. I disagree. And as long as you continue to be a
childish prick, I'll treat you as one.
> Well your answers were not helpful, they were flat out wrong, and you
> are an idiot.
acknowledge. [g] So don't waste our time. We both know your full of
shit.
Dustin
Oct 16, 2012, 7:20:12 PM10/16/12
to
Bear <removebea...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA0EEEF991CCE8be...@130.225.254.104:
> Ray I think your interesting questions have gone right over Dustin's
> head and he's bluffing that he won't help when the truth is that he
> probably can't! :)
His questions are simplistic. I've posted source snippits to a virus so
that he could learn how they worked. That was way beyond his
understanding. I have since posted simple assembler programs which print a
single line of text on the screen and create a file with the same line of
text. Ray was unable to explain any of the lines of code.
Ray doesn't compare to me. I have no problems keeping up with his
questions.
When you learn to show a little respect, You might get fruitful discussion
from me. So long as you remain anal and trollish, you'll get the treatment
and ridicule you so richly deserve.
news:XnsA0EEEF991CCE8be...@130.225.254.104:
> Ray I think your interesting questions have gone right over Dustin's
> head and he's bluffing that he won't help when the truth is that he
> probably can't! :)
that he could learn how they worked. That was way beyond his
understanding. I have since posted simple assembler programs which print a
single line of text on the screen and create a file with the same line of
text. Ray was unable to explain any of the lines of code.
Ray doesn't compare to me. I have no problems keeping up with his
questions.
When you learn to show a little respect, You might get fruitful discussion
from me. So long as you remain anal and trollish, you'll get the treatment
and ridicule you so richly deserve.
Dustin
Oct 16, 2012, 7:20:29 PM10/16/12
to
"James E. Morrow" <jamese...@emal.com> wrote in news:1uklm8kcl2au5
$.yphjhmuz1kue$.d...@40tude.net:
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:28:36 GMT, Dustin wrote:
>
>> Have you learned how a prepender works yet? That's so funny reading
>> back, I'll ask again. Do you know how a prepender works yet?
>>
>> It's still just as funny! :) Damn Ray, I wish you understood.
>
> http://www.virusbtn.com/resources/glossary/prepender.xml
>
> Reading is FUNdamental. Over here in the peanut gallery we thing
> this thread is a real hoot. Keep it up Dustin.
And I bet he still doesn't get it. :)
$.yphjhmuz1kue$.d...@40tude.net:
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:28:36 GMT, Dustin wrote:
>
>> Have you learned how a prepender works yet? That's so funny reading
>> back, I'll ask again. Do you know how a prepender works yet?
>>
>> It's still just as funny! :) Damn Ray, I wish you understood.
>
> http://www.virusbtn.com/resources/glossary/prepender.xml
>
> Reading is FUNdamental. Over here in the peanut gallery we thing
> this thread is a real hoot. Keep it up Dustin.
Dustin
Oct 16, 2012, 7:23:27 PM10/16/12
to
RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:565e5f0e-9daa-4afb...@googlegroups.com:
Do you understand what a prepender is yet Ray? Irok is a prepender class
of virus. I shouldn't have to provide any more source code, if you grasp
the concept involved..
So cards on the table, we know prior to James offering you a link you
were clueless.. Are you still clueless? Do you understand now how my
viruses can infect your junk? [g]
If I copied/pasted either the assembler sources or irok, why haven't you
been able to find the originals and show me up for the fraud you claim I
am?
Fact is, the assembler sources and irok are all my work; I'm the only
one with a complete copy of it. As, I wrote it. Years! ago.
My programming skills were better 12 years ago than yours are now.
news:565e5f0e-9daa-4afb...@googlegroups.com:
of virus. I shouldn't have to provide any more source code, if you grasp
the concept involved..
So cards on the table, we know prior to James offering you a link you
were clueless.. Are you still clueless? Do you understand now how my
viruses can infect your junk? [g]
If I copied/pasted either the assembler sources or irok, why haven't you
been able to find the originals and show me up for the fraud you claim I
am?
Fact is, the assembler sources and irok are all my work; I'm the only
one with a complete copy of it. As, I wrote it. Years! ago.
My programming skills were better 12 years ago than yours are now.
Bear
Oct 17, 2012, 5:37:33 PM10/17/12
to
Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA0EEC57EF9F83HHI2948AJD832@no:
> RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:05abd984-f5ee-4cf9...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> The question was on MD5. The answer (from another post) is SHA-1 is
>> superior. As for the .NET framework, it comes built into Windows 7.
>> You are out of touch, once again.
>
> It's NOT built into systems prior to windows 7. Don't assume idiot that
> everyone is running the latest koolaid MS forces down peoples throats.
> Not if you want to make it as a viable freeware author.
Dustin, smartphones won't run Windows 98 or XP. Get up to date! When Win 8 is
out the future will have arrived in the present.
news:XnsA0EEC57EF9F83HHI2948AJD832@no:
> RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:05abd984-f5ee-4cf9...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> The question was on MD5. The answer (from another post) is SHA-1 is
>> superior. As for the .NET framework, it comes built into Windows 7.
>> You are out of touch, once again.
>
> It's NOT built into systems prior to windows 7. Don't assume idiot that
> everyone is running the latest koolaid MS forces down peoples throats.
> Not if you want to make it as a viable freeware author.
out the future will have arrived in the present.
Gordon Darling
Oct 18, 2012, 9:04:46 AM10/18/12
to
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:37:33 +0100, Bear wrote:
<snip>
> Dustin, smartphones won't run Windows 98 or XP. Get up to date! When Win
> 8 is out the future will have arrived in the present.
And you'll be permanently in the past as always.
<snip>
> Dustin, smartphones won't run Windows 98 or XP. Get up to date! When Win
> 8 is out the future will have arrived in the present.
RayLopez99
Oct 18, 2012, 2:35:45 PM10/18/12
to
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 1:33:11 AM UTC+3, Bear wrote:
>
> Ray I think your interesting questions have gone right over Dustin's head
>
> and he's bluffing that he won't help when the truth is that he probably
>
> can't! :)
It's true Jax. Dustin is good for writing simple Dos assembly language code that you can copy and paste--I have one such book myself--and impress strangers on Usenet. But for serious hacking today the mafias all over the world turn to Russian and Eastern European programmers who don't talk much if at all in English. Dustin talks too much and is too fluent in English to be a real player in the black hat hacking arts. I give him attention just to flatter him--it's a form of trolling.
>
> Ray I think your interesting questions have gone right over Dustin's head
>
> and he's bluffing that he won't help when the truth is that he probably
>
> can't! :)
RL
RayLopez99
Oct 18, 2012, 2:42:04 PM10/18/12
to
On Monday, October 15, 2012 8:30:37 PM UTC+3, kurt wismer wrote:
> no, not really. there's virtually no added expense in selecting SHA1 over MD5, but there's quite a bit of added benefit. generating MD5 collisions is just too easy these days. choose a stronger hash.
>
OK thanks will do. From another thread I found a tool MSFT releases that does SHA1 and will use that.
> no, not really. there's virtually no added expense in selecting SHA1 over MD5, but there's quite a bit of added benefit. generating MD5 collisions is just too easy these days. choose a stronger hash.
>
>
>
> don't bother using .Net obfuscation - there are automated tools out there to reverse the process. you'll only gain the illusion of security.
>
>
>
> if you're concerned that someone may be able to link the program you're planning to release to your professional software then maybe try not compiling it on the same machine or with the same tools. you can still develop the code where you're comfortable and then copy the source to a VM with a freeware .net compiler on it.
>
>
>
> as for the virus angle, obfuscation won't prevent the file from getting infected, but publishing the hash of the legitimate file on an *authoritative* website can help mitigate that problem (basically a site that is the official source and the official hash and if someone has a version where the hash doesn't match that's not your fault)
>
> you're beginning to run cross purposes here. file authenticity and anonymous public FTP? authenticity or anonymity - pick one.
>
>
>
> there are plenty of free web hosts that will also host files for download (not sure why you would want FTP). why not just use google (to host, i mean - though you could also use it to search for a host)?
RL
RayLopez99
Oct 18, 2012, 2:46:33 PM10/18/12
to
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 2:17:39 AM UTC+3, Dustin wrote:
> They don't leave a serial number unless you're using 3rd party
>
> registered libraries. However, your! programming style! DOES leave a
>
> signature which could be identified and determine if your the same
>
> person who wrote commercial program (a) vs the guy who wrote freeware
>
> program (a).
OK, understood. Not a bad point. Programming is a small world.
> They don't leave a serial number unless you're using 3rd party
>
> registered libraries. However, your! programming style! DOES leave a
>
> signature which could be identified and determine if your the same
>
> person who wrote commercial program (a) vs the guy who wrote freeware
>
> program (a).
>
> You could always post it to various freeware sites. they'll scan it,
>
> review it and even host it for you in some places. Shows how stupid I
>
> am? Really? LOL. I disagree. And as long as you continue to be a
>
> childish prick, I'll treat you as one.
> All answers I give you that are right on the money, you will never
>
> acknowledge. [g] So don't waste our time. We both know your full of
>
> shit.
RL
Buffalo
Oct 18, 2012, 3:27:31 PM10/18/12
to
RayLopez99 wrote:
> On Monday, October 15, 2012 8:30:37 PM UTC+3, kurt wismer wrote:
> Can you upload to Google an executable and have somebody download it?
> THat's news to me...please let me know...sorry for the noob question
> but I've never done that before.
>
> RL
A "noob" queston? I thnk you just said it all!!!!!!!
> THat's news to me...please let me know...sorry for the noob question
> but I've never done that before.
>
> RL
Buffalo :)
Bear
Oct 18, 2012, 5:46:54 PM10/18/12
to
RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:fb528bf1-fc53-4688...@googlegroups.com:
Dustin is not a bad guy when he stops trying to puff himself up. Trouble is
he can't stop telling us how good he is. I wish he would cool it and realize
he was once okay but he isn't the best there's ever been. He never seems to
be at complete peace with himself and it leads him to make exaggerated
claims.
Just saying.
news:fb528bf1-fc53-4688...@googlegroups.com:
he can't stop telling us how good he is. I wish he would cool it and realize
he was once okay but he isn't the best there's ever been. He never seems to
be at complete peace with himself and it leads him to make exaggerated
claims.
Just saying.
FromTheRafters
Oct 18, 2012, 8:26:36 PM10/18/12
to
RayLopez99 presented the following explanation :
What is "Dos assembly code"?
Shadow
Oct 18, 2012, 10:28:19 PM10/18/12
to
cracker days was learn Russian and East European assembly.
Really disappointing Dustin was never good enough to learn all
that communist binary stuff. English binary is soooo passé.
TIC
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
FromTheRafters
Oct 18, 2012, 10:34:23 PM10/18/12
to
Shadow has brought this to us :
That Red binary stuff was hard to read - what - with the ones all
upside down and the zeroes backwards.
upside down and the zeroes backwards.
kurt wismer
Oct 19, 2012, 12:58:05 AM10/19/12
to
On Thursday, October 18, 2012 2:42:05 PM UTC-4, RayLopez99 wrote:
> On Monday, October 15, 2012 8:30:37 PM UTC+3, kurt wismer wrote:
[snip]
> On Monday, October 15, 2012 8:30:37 PM UTC+3, kurt wismer wrote:
> > as for the virus angle, obfuscation won't prevent the file from getting
> > infected, but publishing the hash of the legitimate file on an
> > *authoritative* website can help mitigate that problem (basically a site
> > that is the official source and the official hash and if someone has a
> >version where the hash doesn't match that's not your fault)
>
> Yes, do you have such a site in mind? Dustin also mentioned this...if you
> know of such a site please post here. Thanks.
the idea is that you create such a site to distribute your work on.
> > infected, but publishing the hash of the legitimate file on an
> > *authoritative* website can help mitigate that problem (basically a site
> > that is the official source and the official hash and if someone has a
> >version where the hash doesn't match that's not your fault)
>
> Yes, do you have such a site in mind? Dustin also mentioned this...if you
> know of such a site please post here. Thanks.
[snip]
> > you're beginning to run cross purposes here. file authenticity and anonymous
> > public FTP? authenticity or anonymity - pick one.
>
> I think you can have both...I don't see why not...if the site does a virus
> check.
do you also think you can have both your cake and eat it too?
> > public FTP? authenticity or anonymity - pick one.
>
> I think you can have both...I don't see why not...if the site does a virus
> check.
think about what anonymous means. it means anyone can put something there and others would have no way to know if it was anonymous you or anonymous me or anonymous dustin. we can't know something is authentic if we can't tell where or who it's coming from.
> > there are plenty of free web hosts that will also host files for download
> > (not sure why you would want FTP). why not just use google (to host, i mean
> > - though you could also use it to search for a host)?
>
> Can you upload to Google an executable and have somebody download it? THat's
> news to me...please let me know...sorry for the noob question but I've never
> done that before.
Shadow
Oct 19, 2012, 7:11:50 AM10/19/12
to
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:34:23 -0400, FromTheRafters
<err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> I fully agree with you Ray. The first thing I did back in my
>> cracker days was learn Russian and East European assembly.
>> Really disappointing Dustin was never good enough to learn all
>> that communist binary stuff. English binary is soooo passé.
>> TIC
>> []'s
>
>That Red binary stuff was hard to read - what - with the ones all
>upside down and the zeroes backwards.
I used two mirrors, one to get them straight, and the other to
<err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> I fully agree with you Ray. The first thing I did back in my
>> cracker days was learn Russian and East European assembly.
>> Really disappointing Dustin was never good enough to learn all
>> that communist binary stuff. English binary is soooo passé.
>> TIC
>> []'s
>
>That Red binary stuff was hard to read - what - with the ones all
>upside down and the zeroes backwards.
put them in sequence again. Pity Dustin never got that deep into the
science.
Bear
Oct 19, 2012, 3:38:13 PM10/19/12
to
FromTheRafters <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
news:k5q6o0$lo1$1...@dont-email.me:
Try this.... http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Dos+assembly+code%22
news:k5q6o0$lo1$1...@dont-email.me:
Dustin
Oct 19, 2012, 5:49:32 PM10/19/12
to
Bear <removebea...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA0EFE62A2A17Cbe...@130.225.254.104:
Says who? I've got a new droid.. she runs fine here with XP. [g]
news:XnsA0EFE62A2A17Cbe...@130.225.254.104:
Dustin
Oct 19, 2012, 5:56:30 PM10/19/12
to
RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:cd61c4e2-c8a0-4018...@googlegroups.com:
> OK, understood. Not a bad point. Programming is a small world.
What? Programming isn't a small world you fucking arse... Ray...
Your stupidity is so irritating to me.... Primarily because YOU don't
realize it! You probably think I'm just being an asshole and trying to
talk shit to you.
> OK please then tell me the freeware site that will scan your upload
> and host it--but from an anonymous login. I don't want attribution,
> unlike you. "Thanks" if you come though with this--somehow I doubt
> it.
Dude, google PAD file. It's a multi step process. You want it reviewed
too! And indexed. otherwise, who's going to know you even exist...?
Right? See? :)
But first... You have questions of mine to deal with... Unresolved.
> No, I'm actually way ahead of where you think I am.
I don't think so.
First, you pinged some unknown fucking poster named Dustbin with a
question for me!
Next, you asked me to write a virus. why would it need to be a virus?
why not a simple test program or something? You wouldn't even know the
difference. You don't even understand the pointlessness in this
"challenge". It's just a clear demonstration that you really *don't*
understand how it works. You fucking moronic arsehole.
Do you know how a prepender works yet?
news:cd61c4e2-c8a0-4018...@googlegroups.com:
> OK, understood. Not a bad point. Programming is a small world.
Your stupidity is so irritating to me.... Primarily because YOU don't
realize it! You probably think I'm just being an asshole and trying to
talk shit to you.
> OK please then tell me the freeware site that will scan your upload
> and host it--but from an anonymous login. I don't want attribution,
> unlike you. "Thanks" if you come though with this--somehow I doubt
> it.
too! And indexed. otherwise, who's going to know you even exist...?
Right? See? :)
But first... You have questions of mine to deal with... Unresolved.
> No, I'm actually way ahead of where you think I am.
First, you pinged some unknown fucking poster named Dustbin with a
question for me!
Next, you asked me to write a virus. why would it need to be a virus?
why not a simple test program or something? You wouldn't even know the
difference. You don't even understand the pointlessness in this
"challenge". It's just a clear demonstration that you really *don't*
understand how it works. You fucking moronic arsehole.
Do you know how a prepender works yet?
Dustin
Oct 19, 2012, 6:06:11 PM10/19/12
to
Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA0F1B68606005HHI2948AJD832@no:
> Bear <removebea...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA0EFE62A2A17Cbe...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA0EEC57EF9F83HHI2948AJD832@no:
>>
>>> RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:05abd984-f5ee-4cf9...@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> The question was on MD5. The answer (from another post) is SHA-1 is
>>>> superior. As for the .NET framework, it comes built into Windows
>>>> 7. You are out of touch, once again.
>>>
>>> It's NOT built into systems prior to windows 7. Don't assume idiot
>>> that everyone is running the latest koolaid MS forces down peoples
>>> throats. Not if you want to make it as a viable freeware author.
>>
>> Dustin, smartphones won't run Windows 98 or XP. Get up to date! When
>> Win 8 is out the future will have arrived in the present.
>
> Says who? I've got a new droid.. she runs fine here with XP. [g]
By that I mean I can sync it.. and do whatever I need to do as if I was
using it from the phone itself... [g] It runs the google OS of course.
news:XnsA0F1B68606005HHI2948AJD832@no:
> Bear <removebea...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA0EFE62A2A17Cbe...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA0EEC57EF9F83HHI2948AJD832@no:
>>
>>> RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:05abd984-f5ee-4cf9...@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> The question was on MD5. The answer (from another post) is SHA-1 is
>>>> superior. As for the .NET framework, it comes built into Windows
>>>> 7. You are out of touch, once again.
>>>
>>> It's NOT built into systems prior to windows 7. Don't assume idiot
>>> that everyone is running the latest koolaid MS forces down peoples
>>> throats. Not if you want to make it as a viable freeware author.
>>
>> Dustin, smartphones won't run Windows 98 or XP. Get up to date! When
>> Win 8 is out the future will have arrived in the present.
>
> Says who? I've got a new droid.. she runs fine here with XP. [g]
using it from the phone itself... [g] It runs the google OS of course.
Dustin
Oct 19, 2012, 6:07:59 PM10/19/12
to
> Dustin, smartphones won't run Windows 98 or XP. Get up to date! When
> Win 8 is out the future will have arrived in the present.
Please....
> Win 8 is out the future will have arrived in the present.
just... stop posting for awhile.. go take some classes.. Give billy a
blowjob for some lessons.. whatever you need to do. But! Do it!
0 new messages