Re: My Windows adventure
Rob Cypher
>On Dec 9, 8:50�pm, Rev. 11D Meow! <Ji...@Crack.corn> wrote:
>
>>
>> Sounds like somebody disabled the low disk space warning that defaults
>> to enabled and trigger at 10% free space left to go.
>
>I agree with this - 10% is bare minimum - at that point, every data
>fetch is like hunting for sequential needles in a haystack. Throw away
>some files!
>>
>> There are several tools a moderately knowledgeable tech could you to
>> determine the source(s) of system slow-down.
>
>Will you name some? Like it or not, I sometimes need to tweak a Winbox
>(usually in my wife's office). And the local techies also sell PCs, so
>their solution is usually to buy a new(er) one that hasn't kludged
>down yet.
>
>> Usual cause, poorly written antivirus. �The more stuff that gets on
>> the system the more stuff the antivirus needs to check. �And various
>> other stuff that happens as a new pc gathers over time.
>
>Is there any other kind? For 14 years, I've been working on and
>offline with PCs, Win 3.1~XP inclusive; on any that are my own, there
>is NO ANTI-VIRUS ALLOWED! I have never had a virus problem, and I have
>posted to usenet, had websites with my address on them, etc. No virus
>problems. I have, however, witnessed several PCs (not my own) kludge
>down to immobile, with a virus-checker quadruple-checking everything
>that's trying to be processed inside. And it seems that Windows is
>constantly checking and re-checking itself, as if it's ultra-hyper-
>self-conscious.
You haven't had a virus yet, huh? Really?
--
Rob Cypher
http://robcypher.livejournal.com
http://www.myspace.com/robcyphercollective
http://www.facebook.com/robcypher
http://www.youtube.com/robcypher
http://www.twitter.com/robcypher
*
Music Reviews:
http://apps.facebook.com/visualcdrack/people/1713595594
Book Reviews:
http://apps.facebook.com/facebookshelf/people/1713595594
Movie Reviews:
http://apps.facebook.com/dvdshelf/people/1713595594
TV Reviews:
http://apps.facebook.com/livingsocial-tv/people/1713595594
Video Game Reviews:
http://apps.facebook.com/videogamerack/people/1713595594
*
WARNING - THE SHROOMERY IS FULL OF RACISTS. Proof is presented here:
http://robcypher.livejournal.com/68904.html
goarilla
a virus implies at some point in time a faulty user interaction:
you clicked the wrong attachement, you choose to install vulnerable
software but didn't want to configure it properly or change to something
more battle-proof, ... now worms are another story.
goarilla
> goarilla wrote:
>>
>>a virus implies at some point in time a faulty user interaction: you
>>clicked the wrong attachement, you choose to install vulnerable software
>>but didn't want to configure it properly or change to something more
>>battle-proof, ... now worms are another story.
>
> Worms are merely another type of villain but the prevention is basically
> the same as for virii*. Secure your system against opportunistic online
> attacks, and don't be such an insouciant happy clicker.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * in anticipation, fuck you dave
after some wikipedia
i think you're pretty right on the dollar
still same sane principles can prevent worms
without AV. (no happy user clicking and one could
use very secure gpedit.msc settings and
use a normal account - which imho is a lot better
than the default of users and the biggest badest
anti-malware/firewall program on the block).
i could write an essay on why, but i'm drunk
as can be shown by giving you gpedit.msc instead
of its entire group policy path or name
what i was talking about was getting hit
my malware using (0-day) exploits
which as well
if you're not directly connected to the internet
you probably got some statefull NAT/router in front of you
in that case most of the times when you get infected it's because
you CLICKED something and it's helper program or the explorer
shell itself executed it !
eg: IT's Your own damn fault
FromTheRafters
news:4b22aa5a$0$2859$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
[...]
> a virus implies at some point in time a faulty user interaction:
> you clicked the wrong attachement, you choose to install vulnerable
> software but didn't want to configure it properly or change to
> something
> more battle-proof,
This describes exploits, trojans, and *some* viruses.
> ... now worms are another story.
It's the same story, because a worm can drop a file infecting virus and
the virus can then run within trusted channels.
You can get a file infecting virus from a trusted source (perhaps
because they got it from a worm, exploit, or a trojan).
If you do all the right things, you have no reason to worry much about
malware (excluding the reality of day zero malware). The same cannot be
said for viruses because one of the "right things" is to get your new
executables only from trusted sources, and viruses can come from those
as well (without their even knowing).
Sure, they may not exhibit that behavior much now, but it *is* in their
repertoir - perhaps when all the low hanging fruit is gone.