Virus Bulletin... wtf?
Raid
I came across an old article by virus bulletin...Specifically the
August 1999 issue. Sad Spawn. Page 3
Allow me to quote from the article. (I've already emailed Dustin a
copy of the pdf file, with the high hopes he will consult with his
lawyer. <EG>)
"In August, the virus writer known variously as Dustin Cook, Raid or
Casio released the http.toadie.7800 virus". This was taken from the
printed paid for copy of virus bulletin.
Does anyone at virus bulletin have evidence which indicates Dustin and
myself are the same person? I'm sorry, but the witch hunting done here
a few years back isn't going to do. I suspect you guys are actually in
serious shit now. I don't have to prove I'm not Dustin anymore, quite
the contrary; If Dustin pursues this matter, You fellows might have to
prove he is me. Muahaha. Or you'll be facing some terrible legal
problems ahead. Hope your budgets big. <G>
Dustin,
I sent you an email this morning with the file I'm talking about.
Hopefully you and I will see the same viewpoint, and you will pursue
this matter legally. It's high time various media publications were
held liable for the stories they publish. Being listed as a virus
writer is very damaging, More so as they are trying to make you take
credit for Toadie. hehehe
Regards,
Raid
Art Kopp
> Being listed as a virus
>writer is very damaging, More so as they are trying to make you take
>credit for Toadie. hehehe
LOL! Credit? That's a laugh. Never heard of the word blame Raid?
Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
Reply to address should work.
Raid
> LOL! Credit? That's a laugh. Never heard of the word blame Raid?
I've heard of the word blame, usually it comes with some evidence.
People don't normally just blame without it. Unless of course, they
wish to be seen as a pompous ass who doesn't know wtf they are talking
about. :)
Case in point: Toadie. The *ONLY* thing any of you know is that I
wrote the virus. You can't prove I spread it, nor can you prove (at
all actually) that I am Dustin, or that I even know Dustin irl, not
that it would matter if I did.
The fact of the matter is, Nobody (none of you silly fucks) has any
proof regarding me whatsoever; But this obviously doesn't stop you
from touting your bullshit as fact. Akin to Vigilante justice mob
tactics.
I was under the impression Virus Bulletin was a fairly respectable
organization. I've had to reconsider this opinion, since they blindly
publish data which is indeed, not factually based.
Regards,
Raid [slam]
Art Kopp
>> LOL! Credit? That's a laugh. Never heard of the word blame Raid?
>
>I've heard of the word blame, usually it comes with some evidence.
>People don't normally just blame without it. Unless of course, they
>wish to be seen as a pompous ass who doesn't know wtf they are talking
>about. :)
>
>Case in point: Toadie. The *ONLY* thing any of you know is that I
>wrote the virus. You can't prove I spread it
Spread it? You released it, obviously, or it wouldn't be out there.
Personally, don't give a shit who you are. But I do know WHAT you
are. A fucking criminal, pure and simple.
m...@tadyatam.invalid
TIA
--J
Replies to: jNpolak(at)Ojuno(dot)Tcom
sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk
raid...@yahoo.com (Raid) wrote:
> "In August, the virus writer known variously as Dustin Cook, Raid or
> Casio released the http.toadie.7800 virus". This was taken from the
> printed paid for copy of virus bulletin.
>
> Does anyone at virus bulletin have evidence which indicates Dustin and
> myself are the same person?
Nah.. they're not saying you're the same person. They're saying you used
the name Dustin Cook. Which you did. It's all on Google if you want to
find the thread. Or allow me..
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=892213931.12723.2.nnrp-02.9e
980bb8%40news.demon.co.uk&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl3383297121d%26hl%
3Den%26selm%3D892213931.12723.2.nnrp-02.9e980bb8%2540news.demon.co.uk
--
Graham Cluley, Senior Technology Consultant, Sophos Anti-Virus
email: gcl...@sophos.com http://www.sophos.com
US Support: +1 888 SOPHOS 9 UK Support: +44 1235 559933
Raid
> Spread it? You released it, obviously, or it wouldn't be out there.
> Personally, don't give a shit who you are. But I do know WHAT you
> are. A fucking criminal, pure and simple.
I wrote the virus and released a binary sample for evaluation use on
my website I was running at the time, yes. That is not the same as
spreading it, however. It's a fine distinction which does need to be
made; for those laymen readers among us.
Writing a virus in the United States is not a criminal act. Offering
said virus for those interested in them is also not a criminal act. At
this time, I must ask you to state which laws I have broken which
leads you to believe I am a criminal. If you are unable (as I suspect)
to do this, then you should be the bigger man- And retract your
statement.
Regards,
Raid [slam]
Art Kopp
>art...@nowhere.com (Art Kopp) wrote in message news:<3c7a5d66...@news.epix.net>...
>
>> Spread it? You released it, obviously, or it wouldn't be out there.
>> Personally, don't give a shit who you are. But I do know WHAT you
>> are. A fucking criminal, pure and simple.
>
>I wrote the virus and released a binary sample for evaluation use on
>my website I was running at the time, yes.
LOL!
>That is not the same as
>spreading it, however.
Horseshit.
>It's a fine distinction which does need to be
>made; for those laymen readers among us.
Tell it to the judge.
>Writing a virus in the United States is not a criminal act. Offering
>said virus for those interested in them is also not a criminal act. At
>this time, I must ask you to state which laws I have broken which
>leads you to believe I am a criminal.
I'm not a lwayer. Are you?
>If you are unable (as I suspect)
>to do this, then you should be the bigger man- And retract your
>statement.
I'll do that when you retract your viruses :)
Frederic Bonroy
> I wrote the virus and released a binary sample for evaluation use on
> my website I was running at the time, yes. That is not the same as
> spreading it, however. It's a fine distinction which does need to be
> made; for those laymen readers among us.
You made it available to the public, fully aware that it could be used
maliciously.
"Evaluation use". Do you have the slightest clue how utterly ridiculous
this sounds? As if you were an 8-year-old.
> Writing a virus in the United States is not a criminal act. Offering
> said virus for those interested in them is also not a criminal act. At
> this time, I must ask you to state which laws I have broken which
> leads you to believe I am a criminal. If you are unable (as I suspect)
> to do this, then you should be the bigger man- And retract your
> statement.
I'm in Europe and I don't give a sh... about what is allowed in the US.
You should look up "ethics" and "morality" in your dictionary.
The law doesn't force me to offer my seat to a disabled person in the
bus. Yet I do it.
Raid
> LOL!
Laugh all you like Art. Your missing some very simple concepts:
1. A virus is a computer program.
2. Computer programs can be released into shareware, commercialware,
public domain, open source, and freeware. My viruses are released as
freeware.
> Horseshit.
I suppose old age is affecting your memory. But one doesn't become a
spreader when he writes his virus. Posting the virus on a website is
not spreading it. Posting it to usenet as "a nudie pic of arts
wife.exe" would be. But, ehh, I haven't done that.
> Tell it to the judge.
you shouldn't drink so much...
> I'm not a lwayer. Are you?
Don't need to be. It's illegal to use a virus in a harmful manner,
Intentionally infecting someone with it. but, not illegal to create
them. :) They are programs, programs man.. that's it.
> I'll do that when you retract your viruses :)
Ehh, so you had no valid point; YOu saw me make a post and just
decided to add your two cents, which have nothing to do with my
original post in the first place? Thank you so much, dipshit.
Next person, please.
Regards,
Raid [slam]
Raid
> Nah.. they're not saying you're the same person. They're saying you used
> the name Dustin Cook. Which you did. It's all on Google if you want to
> find the thread. Or allow me..
They are saying, "A virus writer known varicously as Dustin Cook, Raid
or Casio".. They are claiming Raid and Dustin are the same person.
It's a cute ploy at legal evasion Graham, but not sufficient. I
explained in detail how that name was released in the first place.
Every attempt you fellows made to link the two failed, Virus bulletin
had no right to even hint that Dustin Cook might be involved in
anything which many consider to be bad.
I realize the antivirus world holds themselves on a pedestal all their
own, But virus bulletin clearly is in error. It's a term known as
mudslinging, it's very irresponsible; and in some cases, downright
illegal. I strongly suspect Virus Bulletin stepped over the lines on
this one, hence the post I made.
The entire Dustin incident started because a user here was marketing a
product which wasn't as he claimed, wasn't nerely as safe as he
claimed. I disproved his claims with an example virus; known as
antichekmate. Martin Overton decided he wouldn't visit the website
where the virus was kept; and until he recieved a sample for himself,
he wouldn't acknowledge he was beaten. I sent him the virus binary
(with his permission) from an account I don't normally email with; It
did have Dustin's name on it for the username. I recieved no bounce
back, or otherwise noticed any problems with the first mailing. I
inquired as to if Martin had recieved it yet, he claimed he did not.
So, stupidly, I sent it again; from the same address, Not thinking for
one second I was being setup.
(I wrongly assumed you guys in the av world had credibility,
integrity; and generally weren't interested in setting people up).
This time Martin admitted he recieved the file. His website was quick
to announce changes made to his program; Giving credit to himself for
discovering all of the holes my anticheckmate virus exploited.
In retailation, Martin decided to "drop the docs" on me, and post the
information he'd gathered from the email he solicited. A very clever
ploy, and it worked. Again, I assumed you were above what you tell the
public we are. Your not. I learned.
The moment the name was offered as to be my name, I denied it (as it
isn't my name). The fact I was using the name doesn't allow virus
bulletin, you or anyone else to claim Dustin and Raid are the same
person. {I told you then, We aren't the same person].
The fact that virus bulletin published the name and linked it to Raid
is pretty sorry for a so called professional organization. Especially
since they were told it's not the persons name, and that he didn't
have permission to use it, he simply did. Virus Bulletin apparently
believes in vigilante style tactics. I find, it to be most
unprofessional and pathetic. Not to mention, probably illegal. (It's
defamation of character in the united states), I suspect UK has a
similiar law? Maybe, we'll get the chance to find out.
Regards,
Raid [slam]
Raid
> You made it available to the public, fully aware that it could be used
> maliciously.
Yes, drugs, cars, guns etc etc etc, even floppy diskettes are
available to the public; And they can be used maliciously. Are you the
only moron here who still tries to defend his side with that sorry
excuse?
> "Evaluation use". Do you have the slightest clue how utterly ridiculous
> this sounds? As if you were an 8-year-old.
Umm. I realize it's beyond your limited comprehension to understand
that some people in this world are interested in dissecting computer
virus programs. People other then those who work in various antivirus
fields, I mean.
> I'm in Europe and I don't give a sh... about what is allowed in the US.
> You should look up "ethics" and "morality" in your dictionary.
A computer virus is a program. What do ethics or morality have to do
with something the computer was designed to do in the first place?
Computers process data, execute code, alter numbers. A virus is simply
a program which replicates without user assistance.
I do live in the us, so I abide by us laws. I am not concerned with
your laws, as I do not live there, run a business there, or have any
business interests in europe; Thank you all the same.
> The law doesn't force me to offer my seat to a disabled person in the
> bus. Yet I do it.
This has nothing to do with my post. Please try staying on topic if
your going to respond to me, alright?
Regards,
Raid [slam]
[PaX]
defamation of character in the united states), I suspect UK has a
similiar law? Maybe, we'll get the chance to find out.<<<<<
Yup we do...even on usenet posts as The honourable Justice Moorland pointed
out in his settlement between Dr Lawrence Godfrey Vs Demon Internet.
Here you can *offer* any opinion with any hope of legal redress.. BUT when
that opinion is stated as fact it becomes all legal..
Ok how it works out is....
*example* only
"RaiD is a virus spreader"...
No action possible,not able to slander a psudonym.
"Dustin Cook is a virus spreader"
Now I'm in DEEP shit,thats Slander and Deffamation of character and a False
Accusation.If Mr Cook believes his professional reputation has been
damaged.(Easily prooved)Usually resulting in very large settlements against
the offender or company.
If I do that on usenet I have a problem...I put it in PRINT and boy oh boy
that gets real expensive.
The onus of proof is on the accuser NOT on the acusee to prove innocence or
guilt
"Casio is a virus spreader"
To open to interpritation..casio could mean anything from a person to a
cheap watch.Not really actionable.
In many cases not only the accuser is liable but also the transporter of the
*word* ie: publisher,posting service etc...
rgrds Dalt
Charles Johnston
--
73 / DX
Charles T Johnston
Prescott, Arizona - U.S.A.
cha...@ab7sl.com
AB7SL - Ham Radio Pages
Official W9INN Antennas Page
www.ab7sl.com
FromTheRafters
"Raid" <raid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e1a0c2a2.02022...@posting.google.com...
> 1. A virus is a computer program.
> 2. Computer programs can be released into shareware, commercialware,
> public domain, open source, and freeware. My viruses are released as
> freeware.
You should have made them shareware (30 day trial).
Continued use after 30 days without registering the
software could result in NAV 2002 being installed
surreptitiously.
[PaX]
software could result in NAV 2002 being installed
surreptitiously.
<<<<
Ohh now that would be harsh!!! dam nobody deserves to have NAV dumped on
their systems....even viruses don't have THAT much impact of system
resources..:)
rgrds Dalt
4Q
> Nah.. they're not saying you're the same person. They're saying you used
> the name Dustin Cook. Which you did. It's all on Google if you want to
> find the thread. Or allow me..
*haha* I read through them 180+ posts. It's clear to me is that *you*
porky are worse then me, you evil shit. You don't let go if you think
you can torture someone, do ya. Are you this sadistic with Marble?.
Imagine the shoe was on the other foot and someone hide your crisps !
Not so funny now is it.
4Q
sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> They are saying, "A virus writer known varicously as Dustin Cook, Raid
> or Casio".. They are claiming Raid and Dustin are the same person.
Well, we read it differently. You called yourself Dustin Cook - as you
acknowledge. Therefore I think it's legitimate to say you are sometimes
known as Dustin Cook.
Who knows (or indeed cares) what your real name is..
Frederic Bonroy
> Frederic Bonroy <yor...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message news:<a5dua2$6an5v$1...@ID-75150.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> > You made it available to the public, fully aware that it could be used
> > maliciously.
>
> Yes, drugs, cars, guns etc etc etc, even floppy diskettes are
> available to the public; And they can be used maliciously. Are you
> the only moron here who still tries to defend his side with that
> sorry excuse?
For God's sake Raid:
Cars can bring you from A to B. That is useful, isn't it?
Guns, although I advocate gun control, can be used in sports.
Drugs - I conjecture you are referring to legal drugs such as
tobacco - well, I don't agree with them being available to the
public. The only reason that they are is taxes, and possibly
jobs.
Viruses - they are malicious. They are not useful.
> > I'm in Europe and I don't give a sh... about what is allowed in the US.
> > You should look up "ethics" and "morality" in your dictionary.
>
> A computer virus is a program. What do ethics or morality have to do
> with something the computer was designed to do in the first place?
Because a virus is a *malicious* program.
> A virus is simply a program which replicates without user assistance.
Ah, I see that you have understood the problem.
Now let me reinforce your statement by adding "and without user
permission or knowledge".
> > The law doesn't force me to offer my seat to a disabled person in the
> > bus. Yet I do it.
>
> This has nothing to do with my post. Please try staying on topic if
> your going to respond to me, alright?
It is on-topic. Think hard and you may eventually perceive
the connection.
Raid
> Cars can bring you from A to B. That is useful, isn't it?
They can also mame and even kill you. Either by your decisions, or
those of another. Umm, I don't know of any computer viruses which mame
or kill people.
> Viruses - they are malicious. They are not useful.
Depends on your viewpoint. Antivirus companies see them as a cash cow.
Regards,
Raid [slam]
Frederic Bonroy
> Frederic Bonroy <yor...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message news:<a5frco$75s6m$1...@ID-75150.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> > Cars can bring you from A to B. That is useful, isn't it?
>
> They can also mame and even kill you.
That's not their primary purpose. The primary purpose of a virus,
however, is to spread and that alone is disturbing. A virus does
not need to carry a nasty payload to be a disturbance!
> Either by your decisions, or those of another. Umm, I don't know of
> any computer viruses which mame or kill people.
If we got rid of all cars on this planet we would have cleaner air
but we would be *very* embarrassed.
If we got rid of all viruses... well I can't think of any drawback!
> Depends on your viewpoint. Antivirus companies see them as a cash cow.
I wonder why virus spreaders continue to indirectly subsidize the
loathsome AV companies by releasing viruses. :-)
Raid
> Well, we read it differently. You called yourself Dustin Cook - as you
> acknowledge.
Negative. I emailed from that account a total of two times, to Martin
Overton. At the time he decided to pull a low shot (to defer from the
discussion on his shitty software); you and a few other avers decided
for me that I was Dustin Cook, At no time have I admitted anything
except that I used the name, that it is not my name, and I didn't have
permission of it's owner(s).
> Therefore I think it's legitimate to say you are sometimes
> known as Dustin Cook.
Nope. It's not. I told you then, I'm telling you now; Dustin Cook is
NOT me. Raid and Dustin are not one in the same person. You know
fuckin well VB made a mistake graham. A mistake which could cost them
a shitload. How many Dustin Cook's do you suppose this misleading
information could harm? Did you know, any of those Dustin Cook's can
sue Virus Bulletin? Did you also know, Virus Bulletin can be court
ordered to provide the name of the person who wrote the article? Did
you know, that person can also be sued? Do you realize just HOW FUCKED
you are? :) I bet you wrote the article, It reaks of your handywork. I
did notice nobody mentioned who wrote the little article on the
magazine; But alas, it's not too hard to find out.
Think of the can of worms you av scum have opened for yourselfs. Too
quick to expose a virus writer, you publish a name you attribute to
being one, without any expectation of retailation in the legal sense?
Why is it, nobody ever emailed me to let me know about this article?
You charge people for that article. Virus Bulletin is probably very
responsible from a legal sense, as is the original author of the work
they published.
Does Sophos have a good legal team graham? Does virus bulletin? I
suppose you best hope for your sakes, that Dustin either isn't
interested in pursuing, or that he is not financially able to do so.
Dustin doesn't have to prove he isn't me, You have to prove he is.
Otherwise, your article is damaging; and not based on fact, for which
you are legally liable. Oopsie.
Regards,
Raid [slam]
Raid
> Viruses - they are malicious. They are not useful.
Viruses may not be useful to you, They are useful to myself; and
certainly useful to have and study from an antivirus point of view.
The concept that they are malicious is really dependant on your POV.
> Because a virus is a *malicious* program.
Read above.
> Now let me reinforce your statement by adding "and without user
> permission or knowledge".
Erhm, that's not technically the definition frederic. Viruses can ask
and act accordingly based on user permission. I do know of a few
viruses which will ask for permission to infect you, and while some
viruses do there magic without user knowledge, Some make it blantaly
obvious they are on your machine.
Besides, User knowledge is irrevelent. Ignorance of the
facts/information is no excuse. :)
> It is on-topic. Think hard and you may eventually perceive
> the connection.
Obviously, it's not. Your posts towards me have been nothing but
personal opinions (malicious virus) for example. I'm not interested in
your opinions, I'm interested in facts. You still cannot provide
those.
Regards,
Raid [slam]
Raid
No url available. If you wish to email me however, I can send you the
pdf file. I shouldn't as virus bulletin would prefer I didn't; But.. I
will.
Regards,
Raid [slam]
Enigma
> Viruses may not be useful to you, They are useful to myself; and
> certainly useful to have and study from an antivirus point of view.
Vicious circle if you ask me - if you didn't create viruses in the first
place, you wouldn't have to create more to understand them! And anyway, you
don't have to create a virus to understand another - you only need to get
hold of the code of the virus you want to learn about. I personally have
examined the code of many viruses to see how they work and understand them
but I have never felt the need to create one myself to further my knowledge.
> The concept that they are malicious is really dependant on your POV.
What possible POV could you have not to regard them as malicious? This is
not an argumentative question, I really would like to know.
> > Now let me reinforce your statement by adding "and without user
> > permission or knowledge".
>
> Erhm, that's not technically the definition frederic. Viruses can ask
> and act accordingly based on user permission. I do know of a few
> viruses which will ask for permission to infect you, and while some
most!
> viruses do there magic without user knowledge, Some make it blantaly
> obvious they are on your machine.
> Regards,
> Raid [slam]
Cheerio,
Enigma
Frederic Bonroy
> Viruses may not be useful to you, They are useful to myself; and
> certainly useful to have and study from an antivirus point of view.
They are useful from an antivirus point of view *only* because
they are malicious.
If they were not malicious nobody would give a hoot about them
and consequently AV companies wouldn't exist.
> Erhm, that's not technically the definition frederic. Viruses can ask
> and act accordingly based on user permission. I do know of a few
> viruses which will ask for permission to infect you,
A minority. An incredibly small minority.
> and while some viruses do there magic without user knowledge, Some
> make it blantaly obvious they are on your machine.
Yep, but they should ask for permission *before* infecting and
not manifest themselves after the infection. Then it's too late.
> > It is on-topic. Think hard and you may eventually perceive
> > the connection.
>
> Obviously, it's not.
Of course it is. The law does not force me to offer my seat to
a disabled person just like it does not force you to not make
your viruses available.
Still I am being courteous by offering my seat just like you
could have been sensible by not making viruses available even
though the law allows it.
Nick FitzGerald
> sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote in message news:<a5dt0s$mn3$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk>...
>
> > Nah.. they're not saying you're the same person. They're saying you used
> > the name Dustin Cook. Which you did. It's all on Google if you want to
> > find the thread. Or allow me..
>
> They are saying, "A virus writer known varicously as Dustin Cook, Raid
> or Casio".. They are claiming Raid and Dustin are the same person.
No, you are wrong. Read it as natural English, *not* in "if we twist
this, stand on our head and read it backwards in a mirror"-mode and you
will see that Graham (a native English speaker) is correct.
According to your original post in this thread, the sentence you (or
is that Dustin?) objects to is:
In August, the virus writer known variously as Dustin Cook, Raid
or Casio released the http.toadie.7800 virus.
At its most basic, this sentence says:
In August the http.toadie.7800 virus was released.
A pretty boring sentence... Perhaps to make it less dull, some further
information was added, which at its most basic reduces the sentence to
something like:
In August someone released the http.toadie.7800 virus.
What specifically did they say about that "someone"? Well, the someone
is said to be "a virus writer", giving us:
In August a virus writer released the http.toadie.7800 virus.
Still not very much content. Do we know anything else about the virus
writer said to have released the virus in question? As it happens, we
do -- s/he has used various aliases over the years so let's add that:
In August, the virus writer known variously as Dustin Cook, Raid
or Casio released the http.toadie.7800 virus.
That is not the same as, say:
In August, the virus writer Dustin Cook (aka Raid and Casio)
released the http.toadie.7800 virus.
The latter would possibly be actionable by a Dustin Cook (though even
then, there is quite possibly insufficient identifying information to
say *which* Dustin Cook is being referred to...). What was published
is simply saying that the person who released the virus has presented
under the names and/or aliases in the list. You have admitted so
previously in this newsgroup and dis so again in the latter part of the
message I'm responding to (I'm not going to bother discussing much else
from that message, so won't be quoting your lengthy admission).
> It's a cute ploy at legal evasion Graham, but not sufficient. I
I seriously doubt your opinion on this matches any informed legal
opinion. VB has been in the business of not libelling people for quite
some time. I doubt it suddenly changed that orientation in August 1999
(or that it would do so over as pathetic a case as yours).
> explained in detail how that name was released in the first place.
> Every attempt you fellows made to link the two failed, Virus bulletin
> had no right to even hint that Dustin Cook might be involved in
> anything which many consider to be bad.
You again admit that you have used the name "Dustin Cook" (and as you
have elsewhere strenously denied that you *are* a Dustin Cook, that
means that "Dustin Cook" is, in relation to you, an alias). Thus a
claim that you have been "variously known as ... Dustin Cook ..." is
true by your own admission.
Now, whether some real world Dustin Cook does not like that you used
his name is irrelevant to VB's statement and your claim about it. VB
made a claim about "the virus writer who released http.toadie.7800
virus" that is true by your own admission (given we accept another of
your claims -- that you "wrote the virus and released a binary sample
for evaluation use on my website").
VB did not make a claim about any *person* named Dustin cook.
VB did make a claim about the *name* "Dustin Cook" and its association
with the virus writer who released the http.toadie.7800 virus.
No person named Dustin Cook has no claim against that statement of
VB's. *You* have no claim against VB as you do not identify yourself
other than by anonymous alias and I think US law follows UK law in
that only real people and real identites can be defamed. (And, as VB
is published in the UK, you would probably have to take the action in
a UK court -- Dalt??)
> I realize the antivirus world holds themselves on a pedestal all their
> own, ...
Compared with the "opposition", that is inevitable...
> ... But virus bulletin clearly is in error. It's a term known as
> mudslinging, it's very irresponsible; and in some cases, downright
> illegal. I strongly suspect Virus Bulletin stepped over the lines on
> this one, hence the post I made.
You can suspect all you like, but I fear your inability to understand
common English will kick you in the balls over this. I hope the Dustin
Cook you refer to does not waste too much of his money getting a legal
opinion on this (unless you really are Dustin, then I recommend you let
your lawyer suck you dry...).
<<snip yet another admission that VB's claim the virus writer that
released http.toadie.7800 has used the named/alias "Dustin Cook">>
> The fact that virus bulletin published the name and linked it to Raid
> is pretty sorry for a so called professional organization. Especially
It would be sorry if VB did something irresponsible or defaming, as
explained above. But as all it did was report a fact you keep publicly
substantiating, I'd say you are just wasting your time and breath...
> since they were told it's not the persons name, and that he didn't
> have permission to use it, he simply did. ...
Whether you had permission to use the name "Dustin Cook" or not is
irrelevant to teh issue of whether VB made a factual report about the
fact that such usage occurred (and as you keep confirming that you did
use that name/alias/identity VB is clearly in the right).
Of course, there is the question of whether you represented yourself as
Dustin Cook and that is a serious illegality in many places. In fact,
given you apaprently know who the Dustin Cook is that you "stole" the
Email identity of, you should be much more worried that he is not
briefing a lawyer to sue your sorry little arse for idetity theft and
subsequently defaming him by associating his name with the despicable
acts of a virus writer and distributor (I hear that can be deeply
professionally damaging...). Of course, you can be fairly sure you
won't end up in a cell with Bubba over that, but having your income
liened to a damages payment for the rest of your miserable life would
be a good start...
> ... Virus Bulletin apparently
> believes in vigilante style tactics. I find, it to be most
> unprofessional and pathetic. Not to mention, probably illegal. (It's
> defamation of character in the united states), I suspect UK has a
> similiar law? Maybe, we'll get the chance to find out.
You're talking out an orifice that isn't your mouth and makes even less
sense (the latter of which is quite an achievement, even for you).
--
Nick FitzGerald
Nick FitzGerald
<<snip>>
> Does Sophos have a good legal team graham? ...
Whether Sophos does or not is pretty irrelevant...
> ... Does virus bulletin? ...
As it has done nothing actionable, it doesn't matter...
> ... I
> suppose you best hope for your sakes, that Dustin either isn't
> interested in pursuing, or that he is not financially able to do so.
Or, perhaps Dustin can actually read *and comprehend* common English?
That is clearly something Raid never managed sufficiently at school.
> Dustin doesn't have to prove he isn't me, You have to prove he is.
> Otherwise, your article is damaging; and not based on fact, for which
> you are legally liable. Oopsie.
Fool.
Read my recent, long, explanation of why you are an ignorant twat in
failing to comprehend what the sentence you are complaining Dustin
may find actionable actually says.
You keep saying you are not Dustin and he is not you, but I'm
beginning to wonder whether you protest too much...
--
Nick FitzGerald
Bart Bailey
> "Raid" <raid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e1a0c2a2.0202...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Viruses may not be useful to you, They are useful to myself; and
> > certainly useful to have and study from an antivirus point of view.
While attacking RaiD is futile,
and defending him is unnecessary,
I'm doing neither.
...just jumping in here to flex the wetware a bit.
> Vicious circle if you ask me -
I love vicious circles,
they have unlimited potential for expansion and entertainment.
> if you didn't create viruses in the first
> place, you wouldn't have to create more to understand them!
If there weren't any virii in the first place,
this whole subject would be irrelevant.
> And anyway, you
> don't have to create a virus to understand another - you only need to get
> hold of the code of the virus you want to learn about.
How do you get hold of the code, if someone hasn't created it?
....and creating a "new" variety serves to test and reinforce ones level of
understanding.
Like watching a true artist in any endeavor, makes it look easy.
It's when you try it yourself, that you really understand what's involved.
> I personally have
> examined the code of many viruses to see how they work and understand them
> but I have never felt the need to create one myself to further my knowledge.
Do you just paste into a compiler,
or can you "create" a replicating application with truly unique behavior?
Then there's the SE component, that becomes a challenge in itself.
Sorta like politicians trying to bullshit a majority of voters into allowing
them to manifest their agenda.
~Bart~
sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> Do you realize just HOW FUCKED you are? :) I bet you
> wrote the article, It reaks of your handywork. I did
> notice nobody mentioned who wrote the little article
> on the magazine; But alas, it's not too hard to find out.
Not me m'lud. I once wrote them a guest editorial, and I think I wrote
them an article over a couple of pages once. But that's about it, and
each time I've been credited.
4Q
upside down scanning his words in my mirror.
> Read it as natural English, *not* in "if we twist this, stand on our head
> and read it backwards in a mirror"-mode
<snip> rest of nicely put words
======
The statement in question "A virus writer known varicously as Dustin
Cook..." That reads in my twisted circus mirror ' A virus writer
known as Dustin Cook '
Can you tell me where this "virus writer varicously known as Dustin
Cook" is known as Dustin Cook? If I posted this from Dalton's nntp
client would I be varicously known as Dalton, PaX, 4Q or PZ
Thanks
4Q [varicously known as that guy over there]
Nick FitzGerald
> Nick did speak, I heard him say, whilst I was precariously balanced
> upside down scanning his words in my mirror.
8-)
> > Read it as natural English, *not* in "if we twist this, stand on our head
> > and read it backwards in a mirror"-mode
>
> <snip> rest of nicely put words
They were, weren't they, and thank-you...
> The statement in question "A virus writer known varicously as Dustin
> Cook..." That reads in my twisted circus mirror ' A virus writer
> known as Dustin Cook '
>
> Can you tell me where this "virus writer varicously known as Dustin
> Cook" is known as Dustin Cook? If I posted this from Dalton's nntp
> client would I be varicously known as Dalton, PaX, 4Q or PZ
I'm not sure what you are angling at.
He was, by his own admission, "known" as Dustin Cook when he sent a
virus to Martin Overton. As admitted in an earlier message of Raid's
in this very thread:
[I sent the virus] from an account I don't normally email with;
It did have Dustin's name on it for the username.
Thus and then he was known as Dustin Cook. Maybe not before nor since
although he admits to using that Email identity a second time for the
same purpose.
--
Nick FitzGerald
4Q
> I'm not sure what you are angling at.
>
> He was, by his own admission, "known" as Dustin Cook when he sent a
> virus to Martin Overton
======
slight aside:
A guy that writes virus (for what ever reason) has to protect his
identity even if he doesn't break the law (spreading or inciting
others to break the law). Take a look at what the mob mentality does
to suspected pedophiles (recently a UK guy found not guilty of any
pedo activites but was murdered soon after his court appearance by two
lowbrow thugites).
The same sort of thing would happen to a guy associated with the
'legal' code writing side of VX if he was accused of spreading virus
then subsequently found not guilty. This is down to the media hype
feeders such as Cluley stirring up the emotions of endusers, i.e. he
doesn't intelligently seperate virus code writers from criminals. Well
thats my impression anyway.
=====
VXers who contribute to public forums such as these (and background
emails) have to protect themselves with remailers, webmail accounts,
virtual private networks and proxies. Given that Yahoo and Hotmail are
ubiquitous and fairly anonymous behind vpn's this is one the favoured
choice of email account. The problem is some pop3 clients such as
Martin Overton pop3 reject/bounce webmail.
Given the above scenario I know that Raid (not Dustin Cook) had his
webmail rejected (from discussion with Raid) when he was trying to
help out Martin with proof that his application did indeed have
security holes. One of Raid's options was to send the virus through a
pop3 client using Dustin Cook's pop3 client, in order that Martin
received the attachment. Now an innocent bystander has been named as a
*cough* virus writer and also had his good name associated with
illegal spreading, by that VirusBulletin article.
I think (but I'm a mere twat so what do I know, ey) there's a strong
claim for defamation of character and I understand legal counsel has
been sort.
4Q
sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Iwil...@yahoo.com (4Q) wrote:
> This is down to the media hype feeders such as Cluley stirring
> up the emotions of endusers, i.e. he doesn't intelligently
> seperate virus code writers from criminals. Well thats my
> impression anyway.
Maybe you should attend one of my talks sometime where I say that virus
writing isn't illegal, and that I don't believe it should be. And that
people should be able to write viruses in the privacy of their own home if
they wish to... I just have a problem if they start spreading them around.
I've been saying this for about 10 years to journalists, to customers, and
indeed up here on alt.comp.virus umpteen times.
Raid
> Or, perhaps Dustin can actually read *and comprehend* common English?
>
> That is clearly something Raid never managed sufficiently at school.
Please Nick, can you do anything better? You only have petty insults
to throw at me? Why not be technical? Oh , heh, that's right; EXE
based viruses are beyond your SIMPLISTIC fucking level of
comprehension. You stick to the macro's man, somebody might give a
shit someday.
> Fool.
Fool? I remind you of your ill advised advice regarding users infected
with Irok just a few years ago. If my memory serves me correct, you
did a double take and mentioned a double standard; simply because EXE
based viruses are too complicated for your feeble little mind.
> Read my recent, long, explanation of why you are an ignorant twat in
An ignorant twat who does have a good understanding of EXE/com based
replication. (ehm, unlike yourself; macro wannabe) Perhaps,I'm not so
ignorant after all. Eh Nick
> You keep saying you are not Dustin and he is not you, but I'm
> beginning to wonder whether you protest too much...
I don't really think I give a shit what you or anyone else here
thinks. I do as I please, I will continue to do so for as long as I
deem i should. Fuck you, and the horse you road in on, twit.
Regards,
Raid [slam]
Raid
> I'm not sure what you are angling at.
>
> He was, by his own admission, "known" as Dustin Cook when he sent a
> virus to Martin Overton. As admitted in an earlier message of Raid's
> in this very thread:
I notice you haven't even attempted to dismiss the martin comments
I've made. Probably because you know that's how it went down. Martin
was a low life half assed programmer trying to make a name for himself
with the big boys.
His pathetic dropping the docs tactic only furthers my view that the
Antivirus community isn't a suit of white hats all out to do good for
the common people. You have your egos just as we do.
> Thus and then he was known as Dustin Cook. Maybe not before nor since
No. :) I said I used the name for the account; Martin knew it wasn't a
legit name with the first email; He just didn't want his shitty
product discussed anymore. Pathetic. Martin and a few of you decided I
would be known as Dustin Cook because at the time, you pathetic fucks
thought you had something; So you you beat it like a dead horse. I
still have the last laugh. Fuck You.
Regards,
Raid [slam]
Raid
> No, you are wrong. Read it as natural English, *not* in "if we twist
> this, stand on our head and read it backwards in a mirror"-mode and you
> will see that Graham (a native English speaker) is correct.
Fascinating. No really.
> Still not very much content. Do we know anything else about the virus
> writer said to have released the virus in question? As it happens, we
> do -- s/he has used various aliases over the years so let's add that:
An alias which I didn't post with, nor do anything with, except email
one of yours (av fucks) with it, twice. a total of two times; then a
big stink was made about it because you thought you got me. So now,
you declare I used it as an alias. Why? Because I defended my
position? Because I didn't let Martin's efforts deter me from smashing
his sorry little program into the ground?
Whether or not you publically admit that's what the big deal was
doesn't mean a damn thing to me. I know you fucks aren't the nice guys
you would like the public to think. Face it dickhead, your no better
then me. I might have written code which harms others; But I don't
recall trying to out somebody, initiate witch hunts, or pursue
fruitless witch hunts on somebody simply because they outsmarted my
virus scanner.
> is simply saying that the person who released the virus has presented
> under the names and/or aliases in the list. You have admitted so
> previously in this newsgroup and dis so again in the latter part of the
> message I'm responding to
I said, That I had used the name on an otherwise private email
account; I only used that email account because Martin Overton would
not accept email from yahoo, hotmail, or juno. And he was not willing
to visit the website which at the time hosted the virus. Why can't you
admit your side pulled a low shot and tried to fuck me? Your ethics
aren't any better then mine Nick. I don't go out of my way to attack
you, or throw witty insults at you; Quite the contrary in your case.
But alas, if all I had an understanding of was macro viruses; and
somebody else knew exe based viruses, I suppose if I was an av twit,
i'd attack them with whatever ammo I could find, as petty as yours has
been so far.
I realize you think your a hot talking shiznit Nick.. But to me, your
just a little av toad who dabbles in macro virus technology; then
preaches from a pedestal as if your a God.
> VB did make a claim about the *name* "Dustin Cook" and its association
> with the virus writer who released the http.toadie.7800 virus.
For clarity if nothing else, VB should state how that association came
to be. But you guys don't like to bash on each other in your little
zine do you? Nah, you'd prefer to run your mouth and talk your shit to
all of the dick suckers who actually pay to read your nonsense. Pat
each other on the back for a well written article, which really
smashes so and so vxer.
> Compared with the "opposition", that is inevitable...
Oh, I wouldn't be so quick to pronounce your side as the good guys.
If I'm not mistaken, your side uses scare tactics; and mass media to
convince users some new lethal virus has come to get you. But when the
date passes, and the world hasn't ended, you claim it's because of
your warnings; that people updated their scanners, and thus prevented
a disaster; with credit to your side for it of course. And when people
like me comment about this, Your quick to claim "Well, not all of us
said that, or said this; or so and so didn't have the info quiet
right" you'll say anything except "Yea, we lied. Sorry."
When your perfect Nick, then you can critize me. But from where I'm
sitting, we both have a long ways to go.
> You're talking out an orifice that isn't your mouth and makes even less
> sense (the latter of which is quite an achievement, even for you).
So... can you disassemble a .com overwriter yet, or is that still
above your programming understanding? I suppose you'll just have to
stick with macros, plain english; easy to read. Right Nick? :)
Regards,
Raid [slam]
Raid
> Maybe you should attend one of my talks sometime where I say that virus
> writing isn't illegal, and that I don't believe it should be. And that
> people should be able to write viruses in the privacy of their own home if
> they wish to... I just have a problem if they start spreading them around.
But you do not differeniate (sp?) from spreading them maliciously, as
opposed to offering them on a website clearly labeling them for what
they are. You see both as the same thing, and they are not.
> I've been saying this for about 10 years to journalists, to customers, and
> indeed up here on alt.comp.virus umpteen times.
Indeed. I leave one of your past for you to review. Enjoy..
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2073229,00.html
I'll probably never let you live it down, because whether or not you
care to admit it in usenet; I know you said the words the author
quoted. It reaks of you. And er, the author said those were your
words. :)
You certainly do talk alot of shit to journalists. Indeed you do.
btw, how exactly did I spread the toadie virus as you claimed? I know
I hosted it on my website when it was new, but I don't see this as
spreading.
Regards,
Raid [slam]
4Q
> pop3 client using Dustin Cook's pop3 client, in order that Martin
pop3 = smtp/pop3 but ya know what I mean. ;]]
> claim for defamation of character and I understand legal counsel has
> been sort.
sort = sought
======
I must install a spell checker and read through my rubbish before
pressing send, I think I've been hanging out with dimbulb(Sugien) too
much.
next I'll be getting a paypal and code ripping. *grin*
4Q
4Q
> Maybe you should attend one of my talks sometime...
*hahaha* You hypocrite. Letme dig out all the dirt on you sometime.
Most the stuff I've ever seen from you and what's been published shows
your contempt towards the very people (VXers) that are a direct result
of your very healthy eating.
> I just have a problem if they start spreading them around.
If there was no virus, fatty, you'd be a starving waif.
4Q
Nick FitzGerald
> "Nick FitzGerald" <ni...@virus-l.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<3c7c...@clear.net.nz>...
>
> > Or, perhaps Dustin can actually read *and comprehend* common English?
> >
> > That is clearly something Raid never managed sufficiently at school.
>
> Please Nick, can you do anything better? ...
Of course I can.
And, as you can see, I did. There is an 8KB post of mine explaining
in fine detail why VB is "right" and why your buddy Dustin Cook has
no grounds for any action against VB. If his lawyer told him other
wise he should get another lawyer (and quick!). (Does Dustin
realize that when a lawyer says "No fee but I get 50% of the
judgement..." that the lawyer does not also mean "...and I will pay
50% of the total costs -- defense legal costs and court costs --
should the case get kicked out or should he lose??)
> ... You only have petty insults
> to throw at me? Why not be technical? Oh , heh, that's right; EXE
> based viruses are beyond your SIMPLISTIC fucking level of
> comprehension. You stick to the macro's man, somebody might give a
> shit someday.
Grow up little boy. As I said in my post, you should read my long
and detailed explanation of why VB is right and why there is nothing
actionable in what it published.
> I don't really think I give a shit what you or anyone else here
> thinks. I do as I please, I will continue to do so for as long as I
> deem i should. Fuck you, and the horse you road in on, twit.
Again, I think you protest too much. If you really don't care, why
did you have to bother telling us so?
And what's with the animal bestialty? Is that the big thing in your
neck of the woods? (Or perhaps the animals are the only ones who
will have you?)
--
Nick FitzGerald
Nick FitzGerald
> >I don't really think I give a shit what you or anyone else here
> >thinks. I do as I please, I will continue to do so for as long as I
> >deem i should. Fuck you, and the horse you road in on, twit.
>
> You sure are upset for someone who doesn't care what people think.
Yeah -- it's classic Raid though...
Outclass him or out-argue him (both of which are trivially easy) and
he resorts to juvenile insults and over-strenuous proclamations of
how little he cares about your, or anyone else's, opinions. (Anal
sex does appear disproportionately often in his postings though, but
seeing as he is a backwoods boy, its level is perhaps not that
disproportionate after all...)
Anyway, the first of the above are typical symptoms of deep emotional
and psychological trauma whose development was probably arrested in
Raid before he reached his teens. (Maybe his overuse of anal sex and
beastiality imagery relates to this too?)
--
Nick FitzGerald
James Egan
>I don't really think I give a shit what you or anyone else here
>thinks.
If (as you say) you're not sure whether you give a shit or not but you
think you don't you can get a quantitative assessment based on the
level of responses you give to the baiting of the other posters.
It appears you do give a shit after all
Jim.
Raid
> Outclass him or out-argue him (both of which are trivially easy) and
> he resorts to juvenile insults and over-strenuous proclamations of
> how little he cares about your, or anyone else's, opinions. (Anal
> sex does appear disproportionately often in his postings though, but
> seeing as he is a backwoods boy, its level is perhaps not that
> disproportionate after all...)
Nick, you seem to be fascinated on sexual comments these days. I don't
mean to be little you as often as I do, but outclassing me in your
case isn't easy; You can't program for shit. I'll let you know however
if I ever get stuck on a macro, that does seem to be your cup of tea.
> Anyway, the first of the above are typical symptoms of deep emotional
> and psychological trauma whose development was probably arrested in
> Raid before he reached his teens. (Maybe his overuse of anal sex and
> beastiality imagery relates to this too?)
I think Nick, it's you who has the sexual deficincy (sp?) problems. I
don't think I even mentioned anything to do with Sex in our previous
exchanges of flames. You seem fixated on the concept of anal sex tho;
Perhaps your remembering your childhood and just wishing it was me
getting fucked in the ass, instead of you?
Regards,
Raid [slam]
Raid
> Outclass him or out-argue him (both of which are trivially easy) and
> he resorts to juvenile insults and over-strenuous proclamations of
> how little he cares about your, or anyone else's, opinions. (Anal
> sex does appear disproportionately often in his postings though, but
> seeing as he is a backwoods boy, its level is perhaps not that
> disproportionate after all...)
I'm fairly certain Nick, you began this flame war with petty insults
directed towards me. I didn't even involve you in this discussion, You
volunteered yourself; outright attacking me in the process. A
backwoods boy? Nick, I grew up in New York; In what possible fucking
way does that make me a backwoods boy? No really, I would like to know
how you arrive at that decision. It's clear not much grey matter was
used in the thought process.
And I don't care much/at all about your opinion Nick. You don't sign
my paycheck, your posts (ramblings) here don't phase me all that much.
You aren't a programmer, your opinion deserves no respect from me. You
can't even dissect a word macro virus on your own; You rely on 3rd
party help from various av vendors to help you.
How should your opinion phase me? You can talk shit better then I? I'm
impressed, it's a really useful job skill you have nick.
> Anyway, the first of the above are typical symptoms of deep emotional
> and psychological trauma whose development was probably arrested in
> Raid before he reached his teens. (Maybe his overuse of anal sex and
> beastiality imagery relates to this too?)
I suspect strongly that your over generalzing, and apparently
confusing your own fucked up childhood with mine. But alas, you can't
even take apart a simple (text based) virus program, so I can hardly
expect intelligent conversation from you, now can I?
Btw Nick, The "Fuck you and the horse you road in on" is a deragatory
(sp?) term, beastiality wasn't actually implied. Are you sure you
understand the english language well?
This will be my last reply to you nick; I don't have time to waste on
flame wars in usenet; Which is all apparently your interested in
doing, debating facts is beyond you.
Regards,
Raid [slam]
Raid
> Of course I can.
Amazing.
> And, as you can see, I did. There is an 8KB post of mine explaining
> in fine detail why VB is "right" and why your buddy Dustin Cook has
> no grounds for any action against VB. If his lawyer told him other
> wise he should get another lawyer (and quick!). (Does Dustin
> realize that when a lawyer says "No fee but I get 50% of the
> judgement..." that the lawyer does not also mean "...and I will pay
> 50% of the total costs -- defense legal costs and court costs --
> should the case get kicked out or should he lose??)
I don't think I'm even trying to debate your comments there nick. I
didn't really respond much to them. Dustin hasn't been in touch with
me over the matter, nor has VB. I can't sue them myself, even if I
wanted too.
> Grow up little boy. As I said in my post, you should read my long
> and detailed explanation of why VB is right and why there is nothing
> actionable in what it published.
Was something I said in error Nick? It's true you can't program, right
nick? It's true you often require the assistance of others in the
antivirus field for help determining how so and so macro virus works,
right nick?
I think you should do a bit of growing yourself, chum.
and while your at it, learn to program; It would help your credibility
when your attacking various Vxers. you make us laugh with your macro
discussions. :)
> Again, I think you protest too much. If you really don't care, why
> did you have to bother telling us so?
I didn't like the article, so I expressed my distaste for shoddy
reporting?
> And what's with the animal bestialty? Is that the big thing in your
> neck of the woods? (Or perhaps the animals are the only ones who
> will have you?)
I think you read into some things a wee bit too much, or you've had
too much to drink when you wrote your reply. I won't count it against
you tho.
Regards,
Raid [slam]
Raid
> If (as you say) you're not sure whether you give a shit or not but you
> think you don't you can get a quantitative assessment based on the
> level of responses you give to the baiting of the other posters.
I find it amusing that other posters have enough time on their hands
to come up with witty baiting posts. It shows that perhaps their
maturity level isn't as far up from mine as they'd like to believe. :)
Thanks for your two cents...
Regards,
Raid [slam]