RaiD is rattling his "bones" again... :o(

42 views
Skip to first unread message

mEMe

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 1:50:58 PM6/28/02
to
Okay, so I've just received the following email from me old matey RaiD
of the SLAM works.

In days of old I would have felt some initial concern, but now it's
just laughable, and to an extent I want to share it with you all here!

To John or whoever you are, grow up matey and do develop a better
sense of humour!

Kia Ora,
Brian

From : John Grahms <raid...@yahoo.com>
To : brian...@hotmail.com
Subject : Stupid fuck. just who do you think you are?
Date : Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:44:25 -0700 (PDT)

Dude... I've been following your comments in
alt.comp.virus. If it's a fight with me your wanting,
all you need do is ask.

But I avoided getting to know anything about you, as
you're just a
has-been sideshow! Now that's really what you just can
not stomach,
isn't it?

A has-been sideshow, much like RaiD.
---

Where exactly do you even come up with this shit? I
willingly stopped writing and releasing. And for this,
you have the balls to call me a has-been?

Perhaps, I should release what I call a message
carrier. IE: it carries your familie's contact
information to each and every computer it infects.

And I'm sure you can guess from my previous works
track records, the information offered will spread far
and wide.

You keep running that mouth about me in
alt.comp.virus; and we'll take it to the next level.

>So you desperately try to drum up attention to your
>own self
>importance, by repeating ad nauseum, the suits you
>wear, the car you
>drive, your beautiful wife and kids, etc etc!

That's what YOU do actually, asshole.
You don't know shit about the vx scene. And those of
us who refuse to help you with your books, articles,
or other journalistic projects of yours; You do this
shit to us.

I have done nothing to you, asshole. Nothing, I expect
the same courtesy.

Remember these words wisely fool, If you continue to
try and coax a response from me with your comments in
alt.comp.virus; The devil himself won't be able to
save you from my wrath.

Regards,
Raid

I am watching you barlev, if you value your family at
all; You'll stop while you still can.

mEMe

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 1:57:15 PM6/28/02
to
>In days of old I would have felt some initial concern, but now it's
>just laughable, and to an extent I want to share it with you all here!

But mind everyone, RaiD did manage to frighten off Fredrik Björck, out
of being a "member" of Tm7t, whereupon I invited George Smith to take
his vacancy.

Kia Ora,
Brian

Lee Higdon

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 3:48:30 PM6/28/02
to
mEMe wrote:
> Okay, so I've just received the following email from me old matey RaiD
> of the SLAM works.
>
> In days of old I would have felt some initial concern, but now it's
> just laughable, and to an extent I want to share it with you all here!
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


That's really bad form, Brian.

Peace,

mEMe

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 4:48:06 PM6/28/02
to
On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 19:48:30 GMT, Lee Higdon
<l.t.h...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>> In days of old I would have felt some initial concern, but now it's
>> just laughable, and to an extent I want to share it with you all here!
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>That's really bad form, Brian.

Yes, RaiD and I would have to agree on that score. Sorry... :o(

But rightly or wrongly despite the "good" that RaiD has "not done",
(if you get my drift) wrt singularly myself, here in this case of
involving my family, I chosen to make an exception now by revealing
his private email immediately. As PaX would have done?

Sure it is swift retaliation and I should have at least counted up to
ten as I've recently learnt at DBT... :o(

My apologies,
Brian

Cat

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 5:36:50 PM6/28/02
to
Supposedly Raid said:

>
> I am watching you barlev, if you value your family at
> all; You'll stop while you still can.
>

An opinion: Threatening B's family will not deter him. To the contrary,
these threats will enable B to continue living the 'poor little me',
further distancing himself from responsibility, his major demon. IMO, his
family has suffered enough.

See #6 and #7

Symptoms - Narcissistic Personality Disorder
by MHN Staff

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for
admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present
in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1.has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates
achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior
without commensurate achievements)

2.is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance,
beauty, or ideal love

3.believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be
understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status
people (or institutions)

4.requires excessive admiration

5.has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of
especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her
expectations

6.is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to
achieve his or her own ends

7.lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings
and needs of others

8.is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him
or her

9.shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Criteria summarized from: American Psychiatric Association. (1994).
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition.
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. http://www.mentalhelp.net

mEMe

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 5:48:59 PM6/28/02
to
On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 21:36:50 GMT, Cat <mo...@hamster.com> wrote:

>Supposedly Raid said:

Hmmm, whether RaiD said it or not, his email certainly did!

>An opinion: Threatening B's family will not deter him. To the contrary,
>these threats will enable B to continue living the 'poor little me',

Hopefully the DBT is carrying me pass that.

>further distancing himself from responsibility, his major demon.

Very perceptive of you... :o)

>IMO, his family has suffered enough.

Indeed they have!

But at least my mother is making a splendid recovery... :o)

>Narcissistic Personality Disorder

A sign of the "ME" times of the last 2 decades! So who hasn't been so
inflicted by this by varying degrees, including yourself perhaps?

But nonetheless many thanks for raising these issues.

A modern mirror,
Brian

mEMe

unread,
Jun 29, 2002, 7:19:03 AM6/29/02
to
On a second and this time more thorough reading of RaiD's email I've
noticed his confession about "releasing" his "art" works.

>I willingly stopped writing and releasing.

A slip of the tongue or a genuine "surrender" in which case I should
have kept it strictly private? But sorry, on this score I really don't
know what? And I don't wish to lose any sleep over it!

But I was angry and should have paused. For not doing so I'm sorry.
Btw RaiD, I've nothing to tell the CCIP wrt yourself.

Kia Ora and sleep tight,
Brian

DeeDee

unread,
Jun 29, 2002, 8:24:47 AM6/29/02
to
brian...@hotmail.com (mEMe) wrote in news:3d1d9508.357751
@news.paradise.net.nz:

> A slip of the tongue or a genuine "surrender" in which case I should
> have kept it strictly private? But sorry, on this score I really don't
> know what? And I don't wish to lose any sleep over it!

Release...as In pass knowingly to other friends/colleuges

RaiD has sent me some of his work over the years for evealuation and beta
testing..

Release does not mean SPREAD.

I have done the same with him and as my viruses havent appeared in the wild
I KNOW he has treated them with due care and attention.As such he is
trusted to act responsibly.

Dont read things into statements that dont exist brian.

Rgrds Dee

mEMe

unread,
Jun 29, 2002, 3:21:56 PM6/29/02
to
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 12:24:47 +0000 (UTC), DeeDee <D...@Demonoids.org>
wrote:

>Release...as In pass knowingly to other friends/colleuges

Take note Vx and those within "dreaming" of fleshing out some more
detail(s) onto the VMDP skeleton. An old master has spoken and passed
his judgement on definition and meaning of the word release, as it
relates to Vx goings on.

>RaiD has sent me some of his work over the years for evealuation and beta
>testing..

Sweet, still more word clarification to absorb. For one thing Bertrand
if still alive would surely be so pleased with this kind of
progress... ;o)

>Release does not mean SPREAD.

Okay, so by your definition spreading is releasing plus the extra fact
that it goes ItW?

>I have done the same with him and as my viruses havent appeared in the wild
>I KNOW he has treated them with due care and attention.

Okay, here's the point that I raised with Benny wrt his sloppy
procedures of beta testing his HIV and Winux viruses!

http://makeashorterlink.com/?O1E962921

>As such he is trusted to act responsibly.

Something that Benny could not guarantee by making an open call for
beta testers, willy nilly... :o(

>Dont read things into statements that dont exist brian.

I'm so pleased that you've helped here to tidy up this ambiguity, that
mine eyes can be now wide open on this point... :o)

Thanks,
Brian

FromTheRafters

unread,
Jun 29, 2002, 5:03:06 PM6/29/02
to

"mEMe" <brian...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d1e029...@news.paradise.net.nz...

> On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 12:24:47 +0000 (UTC), DeeDee <D...@Demonoids.org>
> wrote:
>
> >Release...as In pass knowingly to other friends/colleuges
>
> Take note Vx and those within "dreaming" of fleshing out some more
> detail(s) onto the VMDP skeleton. An old master has spoken and passed
> his judgement on definition and meaning of the word release, as it
> relates to Vx goings on.

Relinquishing sole control over the virus, I would call 'releasing'.
Putting the virus 'In The Wild', I would call 'unleashing'. 'Spreading'
would be what happens next, and is usually unintentionally done by
the average user. I haven't seen any definitive terms for the distinction
between these concepts, but I think these will do.

Art Kopp

unread,
Jun 29, 2002, 5:12:24 PM6/29/02
to
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 17:03:06 -0400, "FromTheRafters" <!00...@nomad.net>
wrote:

>Relinquishing sole control over the virus, I would call 'releasing'.

Ahhh, good.

>Putting the virus 'In The Wild', I would call 'unleashing'.

Very good.

>Spreading'
>would be what happens next, and is usually unintentionally done by
>the average user. I haven't seen any definitive terms for the distinction
>between these concepts, but I think these will do.

Makes sense to me, and agrees with the way I use such terms.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
Reply to address should work.

DeeDee

unread,
Jun 29, 2002, 5:19:13 PM6/29/02
to
brian...@hotmail.com (mEMe) wrote in news:3d1e0293.843258
@news.paradise.net.nz:

> Take note Vx and those within "dreaming" of fleshing out some more
> detail(s) onto the VMDP skeleton. An old master has spoken and passed
> his judgement on definition and meaning of the word release, as it
> relates to Vx goings on.

Old? I agree I have been around a lonnnggg time...but master?? not me,I
am still the student of far greater authorities such as Virutual
Deamon,Spanska,Vecna and some others,their abilities far exceeed what I
shall ever achieve.
All I was saying is that there are distinct differences between
Write/Release/ and Spread.

Write (obvious,to create)
Release (To pass on a sample or offer to friends)
Spread (Knowingly transmit without saying what the code is,or to decieve
in saying that it is something that it is not)


>>>Okay, so by your definition spreading is releasing plus the extra fact
that it goes ItW?<<<<

Depends,imagine two viruses that were only ever given to anti virus
companies appearing in the wild some 5 months later.Who is then
responsible?

>>>>
>>Something that Benny could not guarantee by making an open call for<<
>>beta testers, willy nilly... :o(<<

Not quite so,Benny asked for beta testers,that does not mean that
everybody who asked for a copy got one.I wasn't involved with any beta
testing of that particular virus,the only betas I ever did for Benny was
with Win2k Inta (Win2k msi) a joint project of his with Darkman (formerly
29A) both very tallented people and good friends.

>>>I'm so pleased that you've helped here to tidy up this ambiguity, that
>>mine eyes can be now wide open on this point... :o)<<<

Not so much ambiguity as ensuring that the label "spreader" is NOT
applied to somebody who does not deserve it.In the years I have known him
RaiD has NEVER to my knowledge deliberatly caused another user or PC to
become infected by direct actions.Sure people can say "But his viruses
have infected etc etc" but then again so have some that were only ever
given to anti virus companies for simple research.
As I have said on a number of occasions Raid is one of the very few
people I would trust with my life...

rgrds Dee

mEMe

unread,
Jun 29, 2002, 6:06:46 PM6/29/02
to
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 21:12:24 GMT, art...@nowhere.com (Art Kopp)
wrote:

>On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 17:03:06 -0400, "FromTheRafters" <!00...@nomad.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Relinquishing sole control over the virus, I would call 'releasing'.
>
>Ahhh, good.

Hmmm, but for definition purposes is relinquish identical to release?

>>Putting the virus 'In The Wild', I would call 'unleashing'.
>
>Very good.

Indeed... :o)

The granularity is getting better and sharper! But how and who are
going to have the final say on this? How might acv and others
interested in this defining process adjudicate and set in concrete
what's happening here wrt VMDP?

>>Spreading' would be what happens next,

Hmmm, so this defining process is perhaps akin to a spectral scale of
progress from good towards bad as far as ItWing is concerned?

How many milestones should this spectrum have? Like it could kick off
from viral concept purely contained within a Vxer's head for starters,
then progressing onto his/her PC in alpha form etc etc...

Kia Ora,
Brian

FromTheRafters

unread,
Jun 29, 2002, 8:14:22 PM6/29/02
to

"mEMe" <brian...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d1e2c34...@news.paradise.net.nz...

> On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 21:12:24 GMT, art...@nowhere.com (Art Kopp)
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 17:03:06 -0400, "FromTheRafters" <!00...@nomad.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Relinquishing sole control over the virus, I would call 'releasing'.
> >
> >Ahhh, good.
>
> Hmmm, but for definition purposes is relinquish identical to release?

Yes, a somewhat circular definition. However the operative phrase was
'sole control'. 'Releasing sole control' just didn't sound right when using
'releasing' as the word being defined.

Sole control being out of my hands at this point; I have released the
code. I can only hope that those now in possesion are responsible
enough to handle it.

> >>Putting the virus 'In The Wild', I would call 'unleashing'.
> >
> >Very good.
>
> Indeed... :o)
>
> The granularity is getting better and sharper! But how and who are
> going to have the final say on this?

Certainly not you, or I. Definitions aside, I felt it important to
show that there is a distinction between the acts, and as such
should have differing nomenclature.

> How might acv and others
> interested in this defining process adjudicate and set in concrete
> what's happening here wrt VMDP?

Verbose Millenium Dickhead Posts?
(sorry, just couldn't resist that one)

> >>Spreading' would be what happens next,
>
> Hmmm, so this defining process is perhaps akin to a spectral scale of
> progress from good towards bad as far as ItWing is concerned?

More like where to draw the spectral absorption lines. Shit, I'm starting
to sound like you.

> How many milestones should this spectrum have? Like it could kick off
> from viral concept purely contained within a Vxer's head for starters,
> then progressing onto his/her PC in alpha form etc etc...

I've thought of this before with respect to those who
wish to make virus writing illegal. If the concept is
discussed among friends, then 'no harm-no foul'. But
if the steps were taken to flowchart the necessary
functions, is this a 'milestone' as you put it? As the
concept hasn't been implemented, I don't think so.
Then there is pseudo code, again - it is not shown to
work, so, not at this point. When the source code of
a working executable is written, this is the point at
which I would consider written, that is to say that the
binary, compiled from the source, is viable. This would
be the first absorption line in the spectrum. When the
writer, or writers in the case of a collaboration, allow
others not directly involved in its creation, access to
the source code or its binary, another line has been
crossed. It is now released. If someone now allows
it to go in the wild, another line has been crossed.
Then you get to diverge into unwitting and purposeful
unleashing of malware (enter the lawyers).


mEMe

unread,
Jun 29, 2002, 8:53:24 PM6/29/02
to
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 20:14:22 -0400, "FromTheRafters" <!00...@nomad.net>
wrote:

>Certainly not you, or I.

Actually, that's why all along I've suggested that Vx nut it out for
themselves. We can be but sympathetic catalysts... :o?

>Definitions aside, I felt it important to
>show that there is a distinction between the acts, and as such
>should have differing nomenclature.

Good stuff.

>Verbose Millenium Dickhead Posts?
>(sorry, just couldn't resist that one)

Guess I had that acoming... ;o)

>More like where to draw the spectral absorption lines. Shit, I'm starting
>to sound like you.

Sorry, but there's no sure cure that I'm currently aware of, to
curtail your suffering!

>I've thought of this before with respect to those who
>wish to make virus writing illegal.

Great minds something something... ;o)

<snipped lots of good stuff about crossing lines etc etc>

Kia Ora,
Brian

PS. My kids have just made some yummy sushi for lunch so I'd better
dash!

Wessel

unread,
Jun 30, 2002, 7:14:12 AM6/30/02
to

"FromTheRafters" <!00...@nomad.net> schreef in bericht
news:uhsjf1s...@corp.supernews.com...
I like that.
Dalton names 3 stages :write , release and spread.
I think in most cases there is a fourth stage, it need not be there all the
time but I call it offering.
If releasing is to send it privately to fellow VXers offering is to put it
on a web site available for anybody who visists it. There is no longer any
control. However it is offered under its real identity, there is no disguise
of what it really is and that makes it different from the usual spreading by
placing it as attachments in binary NG's or Kazaa directories under
msileading names.
And even in the offering there are gradations. sometimes they are zipped and
password protected. There are different levels of how to obtain the
password.

Regards Wessel


FromTheRafters

unread,
Jun 30, 2002, 5:55:18 PM6/30/02
to

"Wessel" <wzaa...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3d1ee283$0$94923$e4fe...@dreader3.news.xs4all.nl...

> I like that.
> Dalton names 3 stages :write , release and spread.
> I think in most cases there is a fourth stage, it need not be there all the
> time but I call it offering.
> If releasing is to send it privately to fellow VXers offering is to put it
> on a web site available for anybody who visists it. There is no longer any
> control. However it is offered under its real identity, there is no disguise
> of what it really is and that makes it different from the usual spreading by
> placing it as attachments in binary NG's or Kazaa directories under
> msileading names.

In this respect, it 'spreads' *before* it is unleashed.
Different levels of releasing, like different levels of infinity....
No malicious act as yet, but questionable motives for one
making it that available.

> And even in the offering there are gradations. sometimes they are zipped and
> password protected. There are different levels of how to obtain the
> password.

Attempts at some control, perhaps futile at this point. Brute force the
password.
Encryption however, is a different matter.


Wessel

unread,
Jul 1, 2002, 2:14:17 AM7/1/02
to

"FromTheRafters" <!00...@nomad.net> schreef in bericht
news:uhuvm97...@corp.supernews.com...
You said about the spreading, in comes the lawwyers.
This is a distinct pahase in the live of malware, it is a grey area, not
touched by law.
conspiracy is not applicable, the offerer has no knowledge of the d/l er,
there is no contact except when a password is given.
This is the area that is open for debate.
This is where the virus trickles into the public domain and eventually is
spread with misleading.
This is where the code rippers get their hands on them.

Regards Wessel


Raid

unread,
Jul 1, 2002, 2:49:01 PM7/1/02
to
brian...@hotmail.com (mEMe) wrote in message news:<3d1c9fde...@news.paradise.net.nz>...

> Okay, so I've just received the following email from me old matey RaiD
> of the SLAM works.

I'm not your mate.

> In days of old I would have felt some initial concern, but now it's
> just laughable, and to an extent I want to share it with you all here!

I'm glad you did this actually. I have nothing to lose by testing your
since of values. Does anyone feel they can email him privately now? :)



> To John or whoever you are, grow up matey and do develop a better
> sense of humour!

Hehe, some detective you are. :)

That wasn't really a sense of humour. You've trashed talked me for
several weeks now; and I haven't done anything to you to either
provoke you, or in retailation for your foolish comments.

We both know you don't hold a candle to me, but that's not the point.
The point is this: I have done nothing whatsoever to you, other then
refuse to help you harm my friends. But you, nah; You don't like the
fact I just laugh at your requests for information, so you run that
mouth about me here in alt.comp.virus.

You are nothing barlev, you never were; you never will be. The best
job future you have is cleaning toilets, and I've been told you can't
even do that right.

Did you think posting the email was going to scare me or something?
Hello? I set you up dude! <BIG FUCKING GRIN>

No values, no since of ethics of any kind, Nobody's going to help your
sorry ass for shit. Joke's on you, moron. :)

Regards,
Raid

Raid

unread,
Jul 1, 2002, 2:51:46 PM7/1/02
to
brian...@hotmail.com (mEMe) wrote in message news:<3d1ca2d9...@news.paradise.net.nz>...

> But mind everyone, RaiD did manage to frighten off Fredrik Björck, out
> of being a "member" of Tm7t, whereupon I invited George Smith to take
> his vacancy.

The same Fredrick that when emailed, has no idea what your talking
about? Similiar to Sarah Gordon. You claimed she worked inside this
group of yours as well; She doesn't. She also has no idea what your
talking about..

Did George smith say he was in Brian? If someone here emailed George
Smith, would he backup your claims; or as everyone else so far has
told me, "No fucking idea what he's talking about. The guys crazy."?
:)


Who are the members of this imaginary vigilantee group of yours brian?

Regards,
Raid

Raid

unread,
Jul 1, 2002, 2:55:04 PM7/1/02
to
brian...@hotmail.com (mEMe) wrote in message news:<3d1cc97...@news.paradise.net.nz>...

> Yes, RaiD and I would have to agree on that score. Sorry... :o(

What score?



> But rightly or wrongly despite the "good" that RaiD has "not done",
> (if you get my drift) wrt singularly myself, here in this case of
> involving my family, I chosen to make an exception now by revealing
> his private email immediately. As PaX would have done?

You involved your family when you made it your goal to persecute
individuals you don't even know. I've simply reminded you of that fact
that YOU yourself, your single person is not the entire target range
should any retaliation occur.

The primary goal of any retaliation is to hurt you. If hurting you
more can be accomplished by involving your family; it would be silly
not too. Wouldn't you agree, fool? :)



> Sure it is swift retaliation and I should have at least counted up to
> ten as I've recently learnt at DBT... :o(

Nah Brian, You took the bait. You posted an email that wasn't meant to
me, or so you thought. But the real jokes on you "matey". I wanted to
test your trust, your so called "honour". As I expected, you were
lying about that too.

Regards,
Raid

Raid

unread,
Jul 1, 2002, 2:58:03 PM7/1/02
to
Cat <mo...@hamster.com> wrote in message news:<Xns923BB34A937C0ca...@207.217.77.26>...
> Supposedly Raid said:

I did email him, the email he's posted is presented in it's entirety.
Barlev hasn't altered it.

> An opinion: Threatening B's family will not deter him. To the contrary,
> these threats will enable B to continue living the 'poor little me',
> further distancing himself from responsibility, his major demon. IMO, his
> family has suffered enough.

Wasn't actually a threat. I merely am reminding him that he's stirred
up enough shit, where-as his family is also a usable target. More so
if it harms him more, then simply targetting him alone.



> 1.has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates
> achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior
> without commensurate achievements)

No achievements I believe.


> 2.is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance,
> beauty, or ideal love

Umm, yea.. :)

> 9.shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

When none is deserved. :)

Regards,
Raid

Raid

unread,
Jul 1, 2002, 3:01:53 PM7/1/02
to
brian...@hotmail.com (mEMe) wrote in message news:<3d1d950...@news.paradise.net.nz>...

> On a second and this time more thorough reading of RaiD's email I've
> noticed his confession about "releasing" his "art" works.

I see you read into more then what I actually said.

Allow me to educate your simple mind ... When I said release, as you
know; I used to host a Vx oriented web-site. Most of my viruses were
available, and thus "for release" from that website, providing you
agreed to the disclaimer. And emailed for the decryption passphrase.



> A slip of the tongue or a genuine "surrender" in which case I should
> have kept it strictly private? But sorry, on this score I really don't
> know what? And I don't wish to lose any sleep over it!

Neither. See above. Don't bite down so hard on that foot next time. :)



> But I was angry and should have paused. For not doing so I'm sorry.
> Btw RaiD, I've nothing to tell the CCIP wrt yourself.

That's too bad. Several persons have elected to tell them a bit about
yourself. Background checks n all. I hope the information provided
didn't deter you from a possible job? If so, My deepest most sincere,
"apologies." I'm so "sorry" if I have in any way caused you to misout
on such a wonderful oportunity to further exploit persons who know
even less then you.

Regards,
Raid

Raid

unread,
Jul 1, 2002, 3:06:44 PM7/1/02
to
"FromTheRafters" <!00...@nomad.net> wrote in message news:<uhsjf1s...@corp.supernews.com>...


> Sole control being out of my hands at this point; I have released the
> code. I can only hope that those now in possesion are responsible
> enough to handle it.

Yes, and I'm sorry to tell you this man; But barlev knew exactly what
I meant in the email. This is yet another; attempt by him to discredit
me. Woot. I'm so sad. What ever shall I do? <g>

Barlev knew I ran a Vx website, and he also knew my viruses were
available for "release" from them. :)

Your wasting your time debating this with him, and your comments and
defintions you've provided will likely end up in some article written
by our esteemed village idiot; offered for $.75 ($1.00 was too much, I
expect price drop to ensure a sale) to anyone interested.

My advice for what it's worth, don't debate this further with the
idiot. He's probing. :)

Regards,
Raid

mEMe

unread,
Jul 1, 2002, 3:50:21 PM7/1/02
to
On 1 Jul 2002 12:01:53 -0700, raid...@yahoo.com (Raid) wrote:

>I see you read into more then what I actually said.

That's always a possibility, especially with the English lingo being
the way it is!

>Allow me to educate your simple mind ...

Are you sure you have enough spare time for such an endeavour? But
nonetheless many thanks for your consideration... :o)

>When I said release, as you
>know; I used to host a Vx oriented web-site. Most of my viruses were
>available, and thus "for release" from that website, providing you
>agreed to the disclaimer.

Something that Sarah is presently champaining against!

>And emailed for the decryption passphrase.

A useful safeguard no doubt.

>Neither. See above. Don't bite down so hard on that foot next time. :)

That's good advice thanks.



>That's too bad. Several persons have elected to tell them a bit about yourself.

Golly good thanks, the appointment then won't need to cover that
ground... :o)

We'll be more able to cut straight to the more important points of
discussion!

>Background checks n all. I hope the information provided
>didn't deter you from a possible job? If so, My deepest most sincere,
>"apologies." I'm so "sorry" if I have in any way caused you to misout
>on such a wonderful oportunity to further exploit persons who know
>even less then you.

No worries, but I WILL let you know how it went, but only in general
terms of course to keep the faith of trust worthiness... ,o/

Kia Ora,
Brian

PS. Though the kids are presently sleeping in this morning, it now
being the school holidays for a fortnight (we hear those skiing slopes
asinging... :o), I've got other things that need doing, so my other
responses to your overnight postings will just have to wait for later!


ScaredyKat

unread,
Jul 1, 2002, 4:07:10 PM7/1/02
to
brian...@hotmail.com (mEMe) wrote in message news:<3d1d950...@news.paradise.net.nz>...

As far as I've seen, RaiD has never said he hasn't shown his work to
one single soul. This is reaching a bit, don't you think?

Regards,
Kat

FromTheRafters

unread,
Jul 1, 2002, 6:37:27 PM7/1/02
to

"Wessel" <wzaa...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3d1fedc7$0$94892$e4fe...@dreader3.news.xs4all.nl...

> You said about the spreading, in comes the lawwyers.

Close, but the word was 'unleashing' which I take to mean
the ITWing whether intentional or otherwise. I take spreading
to be what happens next, i.e. mass-mailing, distribution on
removable media, worming its way through the network,
sending itself through shares or relay/chat/filesharing etc. Any
way that the program 'travels' onto another machine and thus
exposes that machine to possible infection.

Spreading, as it pertains to vx sharing of program files or
source code, might be better expressed as 'distributing',
whether ftp'd from a website, or by e-mail or other methods.

> This is a distinct pahase in the live of malware, it is a grey area, not
> touched by law.

Spreading, yes. Some spreading is a built in automatic function
of the program, and you can't really expect the average user to
patch these 'pointed out' vulnerabilities. Most other spreading
is just due to cluelessness, and *can* be expected from the
average user. Grey areas both pre and post 'ITWing', but
the act of 'ITWing' itself should be actionable.

> conspiracy is not applicable,

In my view, only the person ITWing (unleashing), whether
intentional or not, is the responsible party. But, as you say,
this may be very hard to nail down legally. Tracing the program
back toward the originator, and trying to form a conspiracy
theory won't work. It doesn't take a team of conspirators to
hit the send button.


FromTheRafters

unread,
Jul 1, 2002, 7:24:21 PM7/1/02
to

"Raid" <raid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e1a0c2a2.02070...@posting.google.com...

> "FromTheRafters" <!00...@nomad.net> wrote in message
news:<uhsjf1s...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>
> > Sole control being out of my hands at this point; I have released the
> > code. I can only hope that those now in possesion are responsible
> > enough to handle it.
>
> Yes, and I'm sorry to tell you this man; But barlev knew exactly what
> I meant in the email.

Yes, that seemed evident to me, but it also shows a need for
an agreed upon lexicon in order to know what is meant by
a certain statement.

> This is yet another; attempt by him to discredit
> me. Woot. I'm so sad. What ever shall I do? <g>

Be afraid, be very afraid.<g>

> Barlev knew I ran a Vx website, and he also knew my viruses were
> available for "release" from them. :)

You can think *Im' not responsible for what someone does
with my program*, and they can think *I didn't write it, so
I'm not responsible for what it does*. You would be correct
IMO and they would not. Of course, this begs the question
of whether or not they were informed of its function. IMO if
the person had to wade through the information as a prerequisite
of obtaining the program, they were informed.

> Your wasting your time debating this with him, and your comments and
> defintions you've provided will likely end up in some article written
> by our esteemed village idiot; offered for $.75 ($1.00 was too much, I
> expect price drop to ensure a sale) to anyone interested.

You mean he actually *can* write? ~ amazing. I'm not debating
with him, I'm just throwing some ideas to the wind. It would be
easy to misinterpret your 'spreading' statement, I'm not so sure
myself what was meant by it (since I don't know you). I just
thought I would try to clarify the different aspects of the phases.

> My advice for what it's worth, don't debate this further with the
> idiot. He's probing. :)

I have no information of any use to him in this regard. I am not a
writer, nor am I vx. I am neither pro, nor anti, virus. I see them
as necessary to computer evolution, and interesting from an
analytical standpoint.


Art Kopp

unread,
Jul 1, 2002, 7:59:55 PM7/1/02
to
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 19:24:21 -0400, "FromTheRafters" <!00...@nomad.net>
wrote:

> I am not a
>writer, nor am I vx. I am neither pro, nor anti, virus. I see them
>as necessary to computer evolution, and interesting from an
>analytical standpoint.

Necessary to computer evolution? What kind of moral cop out is that?
You mean you don't give a shit about all the financial losses, lost
time, stress, annoyance and fear that many people experience because
of the crap vxers write and release? And you call their vile crap
interesting? :( Booo!!

FromTheRafters

unread,
Jul 1, 2002, 9:51:57 PM7/1/02
to

"Art Kopp" <art...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3d20eb4e...@news.epix.net...

> On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 19:24:21 -0400, "FromTheRafters" <!00...@nomad.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I am not a
> >writer, nor am I vx. I am neither pro, nor anti, virus. I see them
> >as necessary to computer evolution, and interesting from an
> >analytical standpoint.
>
> Necessary to computer evolution? What kind of moral cop out is that?

Without adversity, there is no necessity for improvement. In a
human corollary, if it weren't for the things that make life difficult,
we would not have evolved to be what we are today. I am not
making any moral judgements here, neither am I tilting against
windmills.

> You mean you don't give a shit about all the financial losses, lost
> time, stress, annoyance and fear that many people experience because
> of the crap vxers write and release?

A necessary evil. Institutions which stand a lot to lose, must take
better precautions. Most of the destructive payloads used, are
completely uncalled for, but the payload is not the virus, it is
ancilliary to the virus (in most cases). Somebody wants to prove
a point security-wise, that is interesting. Somebody wants to see
how much damage they can actually do by making the payload
very destructive, that is uncalled for. Granted, some viruses are
destructive by nature (overwriting files to replicate themselves),
but others weren't until someone crafted the payload.

> And you call their vile crap
> interesting? :( Booo!!

A cancer research scientist may find his quarry interesting,
that doesn't mean he is pro-cancer. If no one found it
interesting, there would be no progress in the fight against
it.

mEMe

unread,
Jul 1, 2002, 10:15:31 PM7/1/02
to
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:51:57 -0400, "FromTheRafters" <!00...@nomad.net>
wrote:

>Without adversity, there is no necessity for improvement.

Hmmm, you would have tuned well into Spo0Ky and my - Virus Vacuum
Implosion Theory from '98/'99... ;o)

>In a human corollary, if it weren't for the things that make life difficult,
>we would not have evolved to be what we are today.

Right on!

>I am not making any moral judgements here,

That's the DBT way to go man! Just observe and describe... :o)

>neither am I tilting against windmills.

Safe move there, as its not to be recommended.

Anyways gotta dash again - the kids are waiting to play outside now
that the weather has fined up!

Kia Ora,
Brian


Art Kopp

unread,
Jul 2, 2002, 7:24:39 AM7/2/02
to
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:51:57 -0400, "FromTheRafters" <!00...@nomad.net>
wrote:

>> > I am not a
>> >writer, nor am I vx. I am neither pro, nor anti, virus. I see them
>> >as necessary to computer evolution, and interesting from an
>> >analytical standpoint.
>>
>> Necessary to computer evolution? What kind of moral cop out is that?
>
>Without adversity, there is no necessity for improvement. In a
>human corollary, if it weren't for the things that make life difficult,
>we would not have evolved to be what we are today. I am not
>making any moral judgements here, neither am I tilting against
>windmills.

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't do you or anyone else any good.

>> You mean you don't give a shit about all the financial losses, lost
>> time, stress, annoyance and fear that many people experience because
>> of the crap vxers write and release?
>
>A necessary evil.

Not necessary at all. Useless and unnecessary waste of resources.

>Institutions which stand a lot to lose, must take
>better precautions.

Everyone has to waste their time with virus protection measures.

>Most of the destructive payloads used, are
>completely uncalled for, but the payload is not the virus, it is
>ancilliary to the virus (in most cases). Somebody wants to prove
>a point security-wise, that is interesting.

They have no busniess tinkering with other people's PCs. The fact that
you believe they do literally amazes me.

>Somebody wants to see
>how much damage they can actually do by making the payload
>very destructive, that is uncalled for. Granted, some viruses are
>destructive by nature (overwriting files to replicate themselves),
>but others weren't until someone crafted the payload.

All viruses released on the public are malicious in nature.

>> And you call their vile crap
>> interesting? :( Booo!!
>
>A cancer research scientist may find his quarry interesting,

So what? Does that mean he or she loves cancer? :)

>that doesn't mean he is pro-cancer.

I should hope not!!

>If no one found it
>interesting, there would be no progress in the fight against
>it.

You're completely missing and/or dodging the point. You want to play
like the three monkeys who see no evil. hear no evil and say no evil.
Socially responsible and mature people take a moral stance.

Cat

unread,
Jul 2, 2002, 7:34:23 AM7/2/02
to
On Mon, 01 Jul 2002 14:58:03 -0400, Raid wrote:

> Cat <mo...@hamster.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns923BB34A937C0ca...@207.217.77.26>...

<snip>


>
>> An opinion: Threatening B's family will not deter him. To the
>> contrary, these threats will enable B to continue living the 'poor
>> little me', further distancing himself from responsibility, his major
>> demon. IMO, his family has suffered enough.
>
> Wasn't actually a threat. I merely am reminding him that he's stirred up
> enough shit, where-as his family is also a usable target. More so if it
> harms him more, then simply targetting him alone.

He doesn't care Raid. He is totally self-involved.

Bart Bailey

unread,
Jul 2, 2002, 2:53:38 PM7/2/02
to
Art Kopp wrote:

To preserve the flavor of the argument,
I didn't do any of my usual snippage to the above banter,
but would like to try to consolidate the viewpoints.

I can see Art's hard nose stance that virii are inherently bad,
and so are any and all agents of their actions;
by "agents of their actions" I mean those who code, distribute (spread), or
maintain (collect) them.

Likewise I can see Rafter's acknowledgment of the utility in using them to
determine weaknesses in the systems they are designed to attack.

Personally I think that if something as pervasive as cyber systems have
become, has any inherent vulnerabilities to a coded attack, then the most
expedient solution is to urge all intellectual resources to seek those
weaknesses and develop a more robust immunity to exploitation. I would
encourage the participation of all talent to "shake out" any weaknesses they
can find.
People, like Chuck Yeager trying to "rip the wings off", to find all holes
so they can be closed.

Trouble nowadays seems to be the adversarial nature this quest has become,
with OS manufacturers (MS) appearing to ignore weaknesses and just,
blissfully release new platforms without an inclusive mention of their past
failures.
The recognition of those failures comes as a series of patches, which is
ironically viewed as negative.
The AV industry trying to appear as guardian angels, offering "total
package" protection,
and the VX "outcasts", never being recognized for their talent and
potential, but rather vilified to the extent that it serves as more of an
antisocial incentive, to fuck over those arrogant industry bastards.

In the middle of all this chaos is the pathetically naive end user who feels
left out if they aren't a part of the cyber revolution, that their business
is doomed if they don't have an online presence, and the home user who just
wants to click up a little recreational entertainment.

--
Bart


FromTheRafters

unread,
Jul 3, 2002, 3:25:36 PM7/3/02
to

"Art Kopp" <art...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3d218a4...@news.epix.net...

> On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:51:57 -0400, "FromTheRafters" <!00...@nomad.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> > I am not a
> >> >writer, nor am I vx. I am neither pro, nor anti, virus. I see them
> >> >as necessary to computer evolution, and interesting from an
> >> >analytical standpoint.
> >>
> >> Necessary to computer evolution? What kind of moral cop out is that?
> >
> >Without adversity, there is no necessity for improvement. In a
> >human corollary, if it weren't for the things that make life difficult,
> >we would not have evolved to be what we are today. I am not
> >making any moral judgements here, neither am I tilting against
> >windmills.
>
> Sticking your head in the sand doesn't do you or anyone else any good.

You always seem to infer ITW when someone speaks of viruses.
Yes, it is a shame when time/data/money is lost to the effects of
virus infestation. But some of the techniques used by the authors
of even these ITW viruses, is interesting to me. I don't condone
the act of inflicting these payloads on the helpless.

> They have no busniess tinkering with other people's PCs.

Agreed.

> The fact that you believe they do literally amazes me.

I don't. I believe that demonstrations can be done without the need
for destroying peoples data, or even 'tinkering' without permission.

> >Somebody wants to see
> >how much damage they can actually do by making the payload
> >very destructive, that is uncalled for. Granted, some viruses are
> >destructive by nature (overwriting files to replicate themselves),
> >but others weren't until someone crafted the payload.
>
> All viruses released on the public are malicious in nature.

Some are merely mischievious, but I see your point.

> >> And you call their vile crap
> >> interesting? :( Booo!!

I find tornado's and hurricanes interesting too. Very costly
in terms of life and finacial losses. Necessary to the regulation
of the worlds temperature. Some of those affected by them
remain angry at the creator for unleashing them, but eventually
they realize the meaning of necessary evil.

> >A cancer research scientist may find his quarry interesting,
>
> So what? Does that mean he or she loves cancer? :)

My finding viruses interesting doesn't mean I love them either.

> >that doesn't mean he is pro-cancer.
>
> I should hope not!!
>
> >If no one found it
> >interesting, there would be no progress in the fight against
> >it.
>
> You're completely missing and/or dodging the point. You want to play
> like the three monkeys who see no evil. hear no evil and say no evil.
> Socially responsible and mature people take a moral stance.

I have. These 'interesting' programs shouldn't ever be allowed
to hurt anyone. They should be items of interest, studied in a
safe environment. Unfortunately, this is not the case.


FromTheRafters

unread,
Jul 3, 2002, 4:05:21 PM7/3/02
to

"Bart Bailey" <bar...@nethere.net> wrote in message
news:3D21F6B1...@amsat.org...

> I can see Art's hard nose stance that virii are inherently bad,
> and so are any and all agents of their actions;
> by "agents of their actions" I mean those who code, distribute (spread), or
> maintain (collect) them.

An idea may be inherently bad, but until and unless it is
implemented, where is the harm. I can also see Art's
point, but it is always his assumption that virus=ITW
virus. Most ITW viruses are complete crap, because
they do nothing new, they prove nothing. It is like PaX's
dislike for mass mailing worms, it's been done, no need
to keep doing it.


> Likewise I can see Rafter's acknowledgment of the utility in using them to
> determine weaknesses in the systems they are designed to attack.
>
> Personally I think that if something as pervasive as cyber systems have
> become, has any inherent vulnerabilities to a coded attack, then the most
> expedient solution is to urge all intellectual resources to seek those
> weaknesses and develop a more robust immunity to exploitation. I would
> encourage the participation of all talent to "shake out" any weaknesses they
> can find.
> People, like Chuck Yeager trying to "rip the wings off", to find all holes
> so they can be closed.

Yes, this is a man who put his life on the line to perform 'performance
envelope departure' for the betterment of aviation. He also was a test
pilot for experimental aircraft in which the performance envelope was
dangerous enough without attempting departure.

> Trouble nowadays seems to be the adversarial nature this quest has become,
> with OS manufacturers (MS) appearing to ignore weaknesses and just,
> blissfully release new platforms without an inclusive mention of their past
> failures.

The divestiture of AV from OS left the OS naked, and allows
the end user to run without this needed function. If every desktop
OS had autoupdating AV integral to its operation, how would
known viruses exist ITW?

> The recognition of those failures comes as a series of patches, which is
> ironically viewed as negative.

Yes, that is irony.

> The AV industry trying to appear as guardian angels, offering "total
> package" protection,
> and the VX "outcasts", never being recognized for their talent and
> potential, but rather vilified to the extent that it serves as more of an
> antisocial incentive, to fuck over those arrogant industry bastards.

Quite a 'pissing contest' isn't it?

> In the middle of all this chaos is the pathetically naive end user who feels
> left out if they aren't a part of the cyber revolution, that their business
> is doomed if they don't have an online presence, and the home user who just
> wants to click up a little recreational entertainment.

Some don't want to pay additional $$ for AV, so they run without
until something weird happens to catch their attention. They then
decide to get a free AV solution and find that they have been infected
with many viruses for some years (spreading). Oh well, 'I'm OK now'
with my new free AV last updated in '98'.

Oops, started ranting didn't I.


Bart Bailey

unread,
Jul 3, 2002, 10:55:49 PM7/3/02
to
FromTheRafters wrote:

>
>
> Some don't want to pay additional $$ for AV, so they run without
> until something weird happens to catch their attention. They then
> decide to get a free AV solution and find that they have been infected
> with many viruses for some years (spreading). Oh well, 'I'm OK now'
> with my new free AV last updated in '98'.

Hey. I made it through the y2k rollover, my AV must be working ;-)


--
Bart


ScaredyKat

unread,
Jul 4, 2002, 4:07:26 AM7/4/02
to
Bart Bailey <bar...@nethere.net> wrote in message news:<3D23B935...@amsat.org>...

Cute ;)

Most people I know don't use AV for anything more than testing. AV, to
me, is like a band-aid. It might help a bit, but there's still a good
chance that some blood will leak out. (A more appropriate metaphor
might be 'there's still a good chance that infection will creep in'.
But it's late, and I'm weary, as evidenced by the fact that this very
sentence is frighteningly Bob Seger-esque).

By the way, you haven't responded to my last email, Bart. I'm hurt,
therefore I'm calling you out on this public forum. For shame, for
shame.

Regards,
Kat

cquirke...@nospam.iafrica.com

unread,
Jul 4, 2002, 6:17:21 AM7/4/02
to
On Tue, 02 Jul 2002 18:53:38 GMT, Bart Bailey <bar...@nethere.net>
>Art Kopp wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:51:57 -0400, "FromTheRafters" <!00...@nomad.net>

>> >> > I am not a writer, nor am I vx. I am neither pro, nor anti, virus. I see them


>> >> >as necessary to computer evolution

>> >> Necessary to computer evolution? What kind of moral cop out is that?

This is like saying mad axe-wielding home invaders are necessary to
the evolution of the home security industry. Not something I'd take
into account when considering mitigation of sentence, personally.

>> They have no busniess tinkering with other people's PCs.

Agreed. Same applies to commercial malware (sanctioned only because
there's a buck to be made, and punters are offered company shares so
they can share the greed) and intelligence agencies.

>> All viruses released on the public are malicious in nature.

True.

>I can see Art's hard nose stance that virii are inherently bad,
>and so are any and all agents of their actions;
>by "agents of their actions" I mean those who code, distribute (spread), or
>maintain (collect) them.

I'd tend to agree with much of that - though there's obviously a need
to collect and study them, and to anticipate likely future forms of
attack. Trouble is, vendors don't move until there's a PoC, so PcO
malware gets written, then vendors still sit on thier ass, so then PoC
malware gets released, etc. Slippery slope.

>Likewise I can see Rafter's acknowledgment of the utility in using them to
>determine weaknesses in the systems they are designed to attack.

Yep. That's the fudging point of the PC dogma.

>Trouble nowadays seems to be the adversarial nature this quest has become,
>with OS manufacturers (MS) appearing to ignore weaknesses and just,
>blissfully release new platforms without an inclusive mention of their past
>failures. The recognition of those failures comes as a series of patches,
>which is ironically viewed as negative.

It's proof of failure, i.e. that the original "fit to ship" product
wasn't. No wonder there's reluctance to fix things that aren't
exploited in the real world yet.

>The AV industry trying to appear as guardian angels, offering "total
>package" protection

Any AV vendor claiming to be "all you need" needs thier ass publicly
kicked until they bleed disclaimers. Same goes for any IT marketeers
who over-simplify the real world and thus causing problems and
unanticipated expense (typically of the "gotcha" variety... "well,
you've already put in $xxx to buy our product; are you going to balk
at paying the extra $yyy for the maintenance to make it work?")

If there is an upside to malware, it's this. Imagine no viruses...
it's easy if you can... now imagine trying to warn users of the
privacy risks posed by spooks or marketeers who can read files off
your PC or run arbitrary code on it. Fat chance hotel, eh?

Fact of the matter is, even if there were no classic malware, there
would still be malware dressed as lamb; spyware, porno diallers, WPA
and registration info gatherers, RIAA hacks, surveillance taps...

>------------------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
Malware coders are the Wild Weasels
of Microsoft Quality Assurance
>------------------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -

Bart Bailey

unread,
Jul 4, 2002, 12:18:29 PM7/4/02
to
cquirke...@nospam.iafrica.com wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Jul 2002 18:53:38 GMT, Bart Bailey <bar...@nethere.net>
> >Art Kopp wrote:
> >> On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:51:57 -0400, "FromTheRafters" <!00...@nomad.net>
>
> >> >> > I am not a writer, nor am I vx. I am neither pro, nor anti, virus. I see them
> >> >> >as necessary to computer evolution
> >> >> Necessary to computer evolution? What kind of moral cop out is that?
>
> This is like saying mad axe-wielding home invaders are necessary to
> the evolution of the home security industry. Not something I'd take
> into account when considering mitigation of sentence, personally.

Hi Chris;
since my name appeared first, and the depth of quotes might confuse, I think those two
quotes were from Rafter first, then Art.
To apply my observation to them, I would suggest using the axe-wielders in a quality
control environment, to test the impenetrability of a home security product.

curiosity here as to how you would have the OS mfg. (say MS) behave?
never offer any patches at all, just a new OS semi-annually,
or continue to release "service packs" as needed?

> >The AV industry trying to appear as guardian angels, offering "total
> >package" protection
>
> Any AV vendor claiming to be "all you need" needs thier ass publicly
> kicked until they bleed disclaimers.

or maybe sued out of their underwear for a nonfeasance tort <g>

> Same goes for any IT marketeers
> who over-simplify the real world and thus causing problems and
> unanticipated expense (typically of the "gotcha" variety... "well,
> you've already put in $xxx to buy our product; are you going to balk
> at paying the extra $yyy for the maintenance to make it work?")

any extra $$$ should go into remedial litigation.
(I don't even play one on TV)

> If there is an upside to malware, it's this. Imagine no viruses...
> it's easy if you can... now imagine trying to warn users of the
> privacy risks posed by spooks or marketeers who can read files off
> your PC or run arbitrary code on it. Fat chance hotel, eh?
>
> Fact of the matter is, even if there were no classic malware, there
> would still be malware dressed as lamb; spyware, porno diallers, WPA
> and registration info gatherers, RIAA hacks, surveillance taps...

that smacks of the seamy underbelly of capitalism,
the gathering of demographic databases.


--
Bart


Bart Bailey

unread,
Jul 4, 2002, 1:26:30 PM7/4/02
to
ScaredyKat wrote:

>
>
> By the way, you haven't responded to my last email, Bart. I'm hurt,
> therefore I'm calling you out on this public forum. For shame, for
> shame.

where did you send it?
I check the spam magnet in my header on a weekly basis, and have only seen stuff from Loki.
(happy belated b'day BTW)
.....of course it could have been buried amongst all those altruistic offers to enhance my
wealth, enlarge my penis, or send me on that dream vacation ;-)

km6rf[at]amsat[dot]org
should work

--
Bart

mEMe

unread,
Jul 4, 2002, 3:04:21 PM7/4/02
to
On Thu, 04 Jul 2002 10:17:21 GMT, cquirke...@nospam.iafrica.com
wrote:

>>------------------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
> Malware coders are the Wild Weasels
> of Microsoft Quality Assurance
>>------------------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -

Nice one! While working for DoC last year on their stoat monitoring
and controI program, I did tell 4Q then, that I was a weasel watcher,
but that tag didn't stick in his books... ;o(

mEMe

unread,
Jul 4, 2002, 5:08:38 PM7/4/02
to
On 1 Jul 2002 13:07:10 -0700, scaredy...@hotmail.com (ScaredyKat)
wrote:

>As far as I've seen, RaiD has never said he hasn't shown his work to
>one single soul. This is reaching a bit, don't you think?

They never asked after RaiD, as they probably already knew about him
being just a have-been sideshow... ;o)

But they were most definitely interested in seeking out the most
"evil" Vx group, imo.

It was easy to throw them a lollypop which they greedily lapped up,
namely 29A, explaining to them how that's hexa-decimal for 666, the
sign of the Devi!

Kia Ora,
Brian


mEMe

unread,
Jul 4, 2002, 5:19:12 PM7/4/02
to
On 1 Jul 2002 11:49:01 -0700, raid...@yahoo.com (Raid) wrote:

>I'm not your mate.

Okay, if ya say so buddy matey... ;o(

>I'm glad you did this actually. I have nothing to lose by testing your
>since of values. Does anyone feel they can email him privately now? :)

Sob, it has been very empty of late!



>Hehe, some detective you are. :)

Yep, clueless, 4Q keeps reminding us a!!

>That wasn't really a sense of humour. You've trashed talked me for
>several weeks now; and I haven't done anything to you to either
>provoke you, or in retailation for your foolish comments.

Loosen up man, or do you genuinely have something to hide?

>We both know you don't hold a candle to me, but that's not the point.

Yeah, I'm asavin' them candles for when my kids and I reach the safety
of them caves in them hi!!s up yonder.

>The point is this: I have done nothing whatsoever to you, other then
>refuse to help you harm my friends. But you, nah; You don't like the
>fact I just laugh at your requests for information, so you run that
>mouth about me here in alt.comp.virus.

Hey, I thought we could collate a new world first together!
It would have be an innovative new angle looking at old probs!

>You are nothing barlev, you never were; you never will be. The best
>job future you have is cleaning toilets, and I've been told you can't
>even do that right.

Ya got any tips there, that you could teach me then, as you seem to
know so much about it?

>Did you think posting the email was going to scare me or something?
>Hello? I set you up dude! <BIG FUCKING GRIN>

Left brain, right brain, look out for the wham oh from behind matey!

>No values, no since of ethics of any kind, Nobody's going to help your
>sorry ass for shit. Joke's on you, moron. :)

We'!! see,
Brian

DeeDee

unread,
Jul 4, 2002, 5:53:27 PM7/4/02
to
brian...@hotmail.com (mEMe) wrote in news:3d24b82d.11825097
@news.paradise.net.nz:

> It was easy to throw them a lollypop which they greedily lapped up,
> namely 29A, explaining to them how that's hexa-decimal for 666, the
> sign of the Devi!

Knowing many of the 29a members i can say they are by NO means evil,most of
them are actually real nice guys with a multitude of talents.

In fact one of the originating members Mr Sandman is one of the most
honourable and most decent guys i know.
They are one of the few active VX groups,SLAM being quiet for a while and
Metaphase not doing much of late.
I guess we have better things to do than waste too much time on creating
malware.

rgrds Dee

mEMe

unread,
Jul 4, 2002, 6:53:29 PM7/4/02
to
On 1 Jul 2002 11:55:04 -0700, raid...@yahoo.com (Raid) wrote:

>brian...@hotmail.com (mEMe) wrote in message news:<3d1cc97...@news.paradise.net.nz>...
>
>> Yes, RaiD and I would have to agree on that score. Sorry... :o(
>
>What score?

Revealing private emails of course!



>You involved your family when you made it your goal to persecute
>individuals you don't even know.

I don't remember persecuting anyone, but pulling their legs, yes that
I'd readily admit to... :o)

>I've simply reminded you of that fact
>that YOU yourself, your single person is not the entire target range
>should any retaliation occur.

Indeed, you Yankees call it collateral damage... :o(

>The primary goal of any retaliation is to hurt you. If hurting you
>more can be accomplished by involving your family; it would be silly
>not too. Wouldn't you agree, fool? :)

That would probably only spark Utu from my bros and nephews!



>Nah Brian, You took the bait.

Indeed, was it the left or the right side of my brain that so reacted
while...

>You posted an email that wasn't meant to
>me, or so you thought. But the real jokes on you "matey".

... the other side was already looking ahead to the next sequence of
moves, s2s!

>I wanted to test your trust, your so called "honour". As I expected, you were
>lying about that too.

We'll see. Just keep it acomin'... ;o)

Kia Oa,
Brian

FromTheRafters

unread,
Jul 4, 2002, 8:29:10 PM7/4/02
to

<cquirke...@nospam.iafrica.com> wrote in message
news:3d23fc07...@news.iafrica.com...

FTR said:

> >> >> > I am not a writer, nor am I vx. I am neither pro, nor anti, virus. I
see them
> >> >> >as necessary to computer evolution

> This is like saying mad axe-wielding home invaders are necessary to


> the evolution of the home security industry.

There are mad axe-wielding home invaders, if there weren't
then there would be no need for the home security industry
to evolve to protect against them. In order for the home security
industry to test the measures they plan to use, they must have
the use of a pseudo axe-wielding home invader. As I said before
about viruses, there is no need for them to be destructive and
ITW. But they are necessary for forcing the system designers
to take security seriously with regard to this type of attack.

If there were no adversity, there would be no progress.

> Not something I'd take
> into account when considering mitigation of sentence, personally.

It wasn't meant to be so.


Art Kopp

unread,
Jul 4, 2002, 8:57:45 PM7/4/02
to
On Thu, 4 Jul 2002 20:29:10 -0400, "FromTheRafters" <!00...@nomad.net>
wrote:

>If there were no adversity, there would be no progress.

Progress? You call restricting our internet freedoms and bogging our
PCs down with never ending additional security measures progress?

Lee Higdon

unread,
Jul 4, 2002, 9:08:20 PM7/4/02
to

Well, that argument holds true assuming you subscribe to the notion of
change being a dialectic process. Of course, there is the "what ought to
be" and "what is". Where does the theory of the dialectic process of
change belong?

--
Peace

Lee Higdon,
Plano, TX

mEMe

unread,
Jul 4, 2002, 9:25:51 PM7/4/02
to
On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 01:08:20 GMT, Lee Higdon
<l.t.h...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Of course, there is the "what ought to be" and "what is".

Better still is the rather proactive "what can be" by deliberate
design? As outlined by de Bono and this I relayed about a year ago!

Kia Ora,
Brian

Art Kopp

unread,
Jul 4, 2002, 9:25:49 PM7/4/02
to
On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 01:08:20 GMT, Lee Higdon
<l.t.h...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Art Kopp wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2002 20:29:10 -0400, "FromTheRafters" <!00...@nomad.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If there were no adversity, there would be no progress.
>>
>>
>> Progress? You call restricting our internet freedoms and bogging our
>> PCs down with never ending additional security measures progress?
>>
>> Art
>> http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
>> Reply to address should work.
>
>Well, that argument holds true assuming you subscribe to the notion of
>change being a dialectic process.

Which argument holds true according to what? How did dialectics enter
into the discussion here? :)

>Of course, there is the "what ought to
>be" and "what is".

We collectively create what is based upon what we believe ought to be.


>Where does the theory of the dialectic process of
>change belong?

I have no idea what you're talking about or how it bears on the
discussion.

wessel

unread,
Jul 5, 2002, 5:41:42 AM7/5/02
to
Lee Higdon <l.t.h...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3D24F223...@worldnet.att.net>...

As I understand dialectics it is the resolving of conflict which
creates something new.
That is not the case here, nothing is solved. Just some vendors
reacting to the market forces.
It was code red and the fear of being vulnerable of the USA government
that drove MS to its security drive.
By chance I came upon one of the outcomes :
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnsecure/html/strsafe.asp

Strsave.h can just be inserted in the include directory and it is a
string handling header that defines functions which makes it hard if
not impossible (if used) to code for bufferoverflows.
I wonder why not more attention is given to this, MS is not shoving
this to programmers. I bet most don't know about this new header file.

BTW I heard that the US government is one of the biggest users of VMS,
just because it is such a secure platform.

Grtz Wessel

Lee Higdon

unread,
Jul 5, 2002, 11:05:15 AM7/5/02
to

What's that got to do with the dialectic theory of change?

Lee Higdon

unread,
Jul 5, 2002, 11:14:51 AM7/5/02
to
Art Kopp wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 01:08:20 GMT, Lee Higdon
> <l.t.h...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Art Kopp wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2002 20:29:10 -0400, "FromTheRafters"
>>> <!00...@nomad.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If there were no adversity, there would be no progress.
>>>
>>>
>>> Progress? You call restricting our internet freedoms and bogging
>>> our PCs down with never ending additional security measures
>>> progress?
>>>
>>> Art http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg Reply to address should work.
>>
>> Well, that argument holds true assuming you subscribe to the notion
>> of change being a dialectic process.
>
>
> Which argument holds true according to what? How did dialectics enter
> into the discussion here? :)

The argument that: If there were no adversity, there would be no progress

>
>
>> Of course, there is the "what ought to be" and "what is".
>
>
> We collectively create what is based upon what we believe ought to
> be.

Either change is a dialectic process, or it is not. If it isn't, but one
thinks it is, then it falls into the "what ought to be category".

>
>
>
>> Where does the theory of the dialectic process of change belong?
>
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about or how it bears on the
> discussion.
>

Maybe Rafters does. He seems to subscribe to that theory. This theory
dates back to at least Heraclitis and later found champions in and Hegel
and Marx (not Groucho).

Lee Higdon

unread,
Jul 5, 2002, 11:19:39 AM7/5/02
to
wessel wrote:

> As I understand dialectics it is the resolving of conflict which
> creates something new.
> That is not the case here, nothing is solved.

In a much broader sense, dialectics explains change. There is not always
a resolution. The process of evolution can be viewed as a dialectic
process.

Lee Higdon

unread,
Jul 5, 2002, 11:21:26 AM7/5/02
to
wessel wrote:
Just some vendors
> reacting to the market forces.

A good example of the dialectic process.

Art Kopp

unread,
Jul 5, 2002, 11:42:02 AM7/5/02
to

Ah, Heraclitis (or Heraclitus?)! If my memory serves me well enough to
go back to the dim past of my interest in philosphical and
metaphysical questions, I recall being fascinated by his mystical
views. Not that 'ol Socrates himself wasn't a mystic of sorts with his
infallible "daemon" guiding him. Fits in with the modern "New Age"
mystical movement. Nothing much new under the sun. The most ancient of
known religions was amazingly similar to the "New Age" beliefs.

Now back to your regular program and enough of this shit :)

Wessel

unread,
Jul 5, 2002, 2:08:31 PM7/5/02
to

"Lee Higdon" <l.t.h...@worldnet.att.net> schreef in bericht
news:3D25BA19...@worldnet.att.net...

> Lee Higdon,
> Plano, TX
>
LOL, I wonder how many Americans will accept that capitalism is really
dialtectics in progress :-)

I IRC Karl Marx used it in a much narrower sence. (yess I actually read :Das
Kapital)
With him communism would be the resolution of the conflict between the
laborers and the capital owners.
After wich neither group would exist as they were joined in a new reality.

Regards Wessel


ScaredyKat

unread,
Jul 5, 2002, 1:52:46 PM7/5/02
to
Bart Bailey <bar...@nethere.net> wrote in message news:<3D247102...@amsat.org>...

I replied to the email I got from you, so it was sent to wherever that
came from. I don't recall the address. I could look it up now, but I'm
far too lazy.

The subject header did contain the words "viagra", "diploma", "weight
loss" and "free". You think that's the problem?

Shall I email you and attempt to recreate the last email? Trust me, it
wasn't that exciting. Just a bunch of current events BS, and gloating
over the Yankees finally hijacking first place in the AL East.

Regards,
Kat

l0K1

unread,
Jul 5, 2002, 2:26:02 PM7/5/02
to
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002 20:08:31 +0200, "Wessel" <wzaa...@xs4all.nl>
wrote:

>After wich neither group would exist as they were joined in a new reality.

But alas now instead, we're all heading towards a modern form of
serfdom and feudalism via globalisation... :o(

Returning to what is the dialectic process, afaik it's when a state of
equilibrium becomes for whatever reason unstable via "agitation", thus
giving rise to conflict. This conflict to avoid an endless cycle of
provocation and retaliation, "searches" for a resolution out of which
a NEW equilibrium is established.

The important point being that resolutions don't settle back into
older ones, ie each successive equilibrium is original from those
precious.

How might this relate to VMDP? To me it's obvious... :o)

The formalisation via labeling etc, of a well established albeit
obscure ad hoc process.

Kia Ora,
Brian