To Virus Writers: Why target ordinary people?
news
I just saw: http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/w32blastera.html when a
man wrote a message:
"I just want to say LOVE YOU SAN!! billy gates why do you make this possible
? Stop making money and fix your software!! "
I had that virus some time ago. It cost me 100 pounds (about 150 USD) in
repairs and I lost about 8 hrs work time.
If the virus writers are after Gates, then why not attack microsoft.com?
Gates has the CASH to handle it.
Others are just people trying to earn money, pay bills, and get ahead. WE
DONT NEED VIRUSES
I think the parallel is with terrorism. Terrorists ALWAYS attack civilians,
they NEVER attack troops (hard targets). They put bombs in cafes, pubs,
aircraft, buses. They dont attack tanks, fighter jets, army camps.
If virus writers want a real challenge then the challenge is to attack
Microsoft directly not people who are just working to pay bills.
optikl
> If virus writers want a real challenge then the challenge is to attack
> Microsoft directly not people who are just working to pay bills.
>
>
You don't seem to get it. Property crimes always target the weakest
link. Virus writers aren't after Bill Gates.
Nil
news:V%Nrf.14774$iz3...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
> If the virus writers are after Gates, then why not attack
> microsoft.com?
They are not after Bill Gates or Microsoft. They are out to get you.
They are vandals, the same people who would throw a brick through your
window, or key your car, or spraypaint graffiti on your wall or set a
building on fire. It's mindless destruction, and there's no rational
explanation.
Jim
"news" <sa...@logicians.com> wrote in message
news:V%Nrf.14774$iz3...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>I have been infected many times with virus pgms and lost 3 pcs to viruses.
Jim
optikl
Well, it may have once been just that way for some, or even many. But
like many things, the intent of authoring and release of malware has
evolved from simple damage of property (OS, programs, files and data)to
property theft (passwords, bank records, data). I wouldn't be so glib as
to paint the problem as simply one of cyber vandalism. There is a
contingent that believes organized crime has a hand in the propagation
of malware.
Nil
news:A8qdnXU1f6C0hi3e...@comcast.com:
> I wouldn't be so glib as to paint the problem as simply one of
> cyber vandalism. There is a contingent that believes organized
> crime has a hand in the propagation of malware.
Yes, you're right, my response was shortsighted. There are still plenty
of viruses whose sole goal is to wreck your files and iconvenience you,
with no benefit to the virus writer. But now there are lots of malwares
whose aim is to gain access to your computer and the personal data it
holds. I'm don't put much stock in most conspiracy theories, but I can
easily believe that there is some organization behind it. There is much
money to me made from this kind of theft.
Jim
holes are vulnerable.
Jim
Dustin Cook
When I was writing viruses, I didn't have any particular targets in
mind. I wasn't "out to get you". I didn't consider myself a vandal then
either, and I really don't agree with the simpleton mindset you seem to
have with regard to it. I don't know anybody in my VX career who would
torch a building, smash a car, or throw bricks thru somebodies window.
Coding viruses was a technical challenge, nothing more, nothing less.
I would recommend you get your head out of your ass, and stop posting
such assinine drivel in the future. You clearly have no idea what your
talking about.
Mindless destruction? Please. Do you have any idea how many viruses
that did no harm whatsoever to the end user... The user in most cases
caused far more harm when he/she paniced and tried to remove it then
many viruses could have ever done.
If that's what you think people wrote viruses for, then you really do
have no clue about it.
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
Dustin Cook
news wrote:
> I have been infected many times with virus pgms and lost 3 pcs to viruses.
Then you do not practice safe hex. When you say you lost 3 pcs to
viruses, how exactly do you mean you lost them? Viruses are nothing
more then software. Any software program can be removed. Unless said
viruses trashed your BIOS, it's highly unlikely the PC's were actually
damaged.
> I just saw: http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/w32blastera.html when a
> man wrote a message:
> "I just want to say LOVE YOU SAN!! billy gates why do you make this possible
> ? Stop making money and fix your software!! "
>
> I had that virus some time ago. It cost me 100 pounds (about 150 USD) in
> repairs and I lost about 8 hrs work time.
Like I said, you do not understand virus safety. I think you were
billed more for stupidity then the actual removal.
> If the virus writers are after Gates, then why not attack microsoft.com?
Who said virus writers were after Gates? I never was.
> Gates has the CASH to handle it.
Money has nothing to do with us. We never coded for money.
> Others are just people trying to earn money, pay bills, and get ahead. WE
> DONT NEED VIRUSES
But you do need an education in safe hex. Your not only a danger to
yourself, but also a danger to others.
> I think the parallel is with terrorism. Terrorists ALWAYS attack civilians,
> they NEVER attack troops (hard targets). They put bombs in cafes, pubs,
> aircraft, buses. They dont attack tanks, fighter jets, army camps.
I don't appreciate being called a terrorist. I'm not one.
> If virus writers want a real challenge then the challenge is to attack
> Microsoft directly not people who are just working to pay bills.
The challenge was the software. That was all.
Regards,
Dustin Cook
formally Raid/slam
http://bughunter.atspace.org
Dustin Cook
Jim wrote:
> "news" <sa...@logicians.com> wrote in message
> news:V%Nrf.14774$iz3...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In reality, the virus writers attack everybody. Only those with security
> holes are vulnerable.
> Jim
Security Holes? Viruses are not the same as exploits. Despite the
claims made by various antivirus companies, they are retro-active in
protecting you. They do not detect viruses well written that they don't
already know about. No security in the world is going to prevent a new
virus from getting control of your box if you execute something
infected with it. Please don't confuse security holes with a new virus
in the future, they are not one in the same.
Nil
news:1135699155.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> When I was writing viruses, I didn't have any particular targets
> in mind.
Mindless.
> I don't know anybody in my VX career who would torch a building,
> smash a car, or throw bricks thru somebodies window. Coding
> viruses was a technical challenge, nothing more, nothing less.
If you ever wrote a program designed to corrupt or destroy another
persons data, and allowed it into the wild, you are a vandal.
> I would recommend you get your head out of your ass, and stop
> posting such assinine drivel in the future. You clearly have no
> idea what your talking about.
I recommend that you stop whitewashing your sociopathic tendencies.
Matters Not
> On 27 Dec 2005, "Dustin Cook" <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1135699155.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> When I was writing viruses, I didn't have any particular targets
>> in mind.
>
> Mindless.
That seems to be an accurate description of Dustin, yes.
>> I don't know anybody in my VX career who would torch a building,
>> smash a car, or throw bricks thru somebodies window. Coding
>> viruses was a technical challenge, nothing more, nothing less.
>
> If you ever wrote a program designed to corrupt or destroy another
> persons data, and allowed it into the wild, you are a vandal.
He refuses to see it that way. He's just going to tell you the same thing
he told another poster. Some bullshit to the effect that it was, "only
about writing the code", and nothing more. Oh, but now he's supposedly
mending his ways by writing an anti-malware program. Yeah. Like anybody
with a brain would install *anything* written by someone proudly claiming to
have been a virus writer in the past. That's a hot one.
>> I would recommend you get your head out of your ass, and stop
>> posting such assinine drivel in the future. You clearly have no
>> idea what your talking about.
>
> I recommend that you stop whitewashing your sociopathic tendencies.
He can't. His ego won't allow it. You may not have noticed but he got
shredded a little while back in this and some other groups, and he STILL
hasn't gotten over it.
(He'll deny the above of course, but I read it all. He made the mistake of
challenging the "wrong" people. People who have probably forgotten more
than he'll ever know, and got his ass handed to him on a silver platter.)
That shut him up for a little while, but he's back. And has now taken to
suggesting that people, "have a little fun with the cotse domain." in an
effort to get even with one of his major detractors.
So much for turning over a new leaf, huh?
kurt wismer
[snip]
> When I was writing viruses, I didn't have any particular targets in
> mind. I wasn't "out to get you". I didn't consider myself a vandal then
> either, and I really don't agree with the simpleton mindset you seem to
> have with regard to it.
if one only writes and doesn't spread then indeed "vandal" is a
mischaracterization...
however, if one helps others who do spread, then accomplice is not a
mischaracterization...
> I don't know anybody in my VX career who would
> torch a building, smash a car, or throw bricks thru somebodies window.
> Coding viruses was a technical challenge, nothing more, nothing less.
that's how you see it, but others can and do see it differently... you
and i both know that you are (or were) acquainted with at least one
spreader... do you really think the technical challenge alone is the
motivation behind the spreading? where exactly is the technical
challenge there?
[snip]
> If that's what you think people wrote viruses for, then you really do
> have no clue about it.
most people are only aware of virus writers in so far as they're the
ones who write the viruses that cause people so many problems... for
those viruses to cause problems they have to 'get out'... for them to
get out *somebody* has to have been careless, ignorant, or malicious...
the distinction you bring to the table of folks who only write the virus
and do nothing more is an invisible scenario to most people... that's
why it gets left out... if you prefer, you can think of it another way -
when most people talk about virus writers they *aren't* talking about
the ones who only write the virus and nothing more...
(or you could go on a crusade to correct everyone's misuse of terminology)
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
kurt wismer
> Jim wrote:
>
>>In reality, the virus writers attack everybody. Only those with security
>>holes are vulnerable.
>>Jim
>
> Security Holes? Viruses are not the same as exploits. Despite the
> claims made by various antivirus companies, they are retro-active in
> protecting you.
the term is "reactive" - otherwise correct however, viruses are not the
same as exploits and in general do not depend on the presence software
or hardware vulnerabilities... virus infectability is inherent to all
general purpose computing platforms...
kurt wismer
>>Gates has the CASH to handle it.
>
> Money has nothing to do with us. We never coded for money.
yeah, but you're old-school...
kurt wismer
[snip]
> He can't. His ego won't allow it. You may not have noticed but he got
> shredded a little while back in this and some other groups, and he STILL
> hasn't gotten over it.
being 'shredded' by an army of pseudonymous trolls who flood this group
with crap doesn't really count...
> (He'll deny the above of course, but I read it all. He made the mistake of
> challenging the "wrong" people. People who have probably forgotten more
> than he'll ever know, and got his ass handed to him on a silver platter.)
you read it all, did you... and you are?
i've been here for 10 years and i don't recognize you as being a regular
here, nor was there a preponderance of alt.comp.virus regulars
participating in the 'shredding' of which you speak... i humbly suggest
that you haven't been here long enough to distinguish the truly
knowledgeable people in this group from the flash mob of pretenders...
if you were a regular or even someone who'd been here long enough to
know what's what, you'd never have bothered to read it all...
Matters Not
> Dustin Cook wrote:
> [snip]
>> When I was writing viruses, I didn't have any particular targets in
>> mind. I wasn't "out to get you". I didn't consider myself a vandal
>> then either, and I really don't agree with the simpleton mindset you
>> seem to have with regard to it.
>
> if one only writes and doesn't spread then indeed "vandal" is a
> mischaracterization...
Where's the "payload" come into play by simply writing a virus?
How would one test it? By deliberately infecting one's own machine? That
seems kinda silly.
> however, if one helps others who do spread, then accomplice is not a
> mischaracterization...
Writing a virus while having no intentions of distributing it would be at
best, a waste of time.
Certainly if one's objective is to challenge one's own coding ability, there
are many other *constructive* ways of doing so.
>> I don't know anybody in my VX career who would
>> torch a building, smash a car, or throw bricks thru somebodies
>> window. Coding viruses was a technical challenge, nothing more,
>> nothing less.
>
> that's how you see it, but others can and do see it differently... you
> and i both know that you are (or were) acquainted with at least one
> spreader... do you really think the technical challenge alone is the
> motivation behind the spreading? where exactly is the technical
> challenge there?
>
> [snip]
>> If that's what you think people wrote viruses for, then you really do
>> have no clue about it.
>
> most people are only aware of virus writers in so far as they're the
> ones who write the viruses that cause people so many problems... for
> those viruses to cause problems they have to 'get out'... for them to
> get out *somebody* has to have been careless, ignorant, or
> malicious...
> the distinction you bring to the table of folks who only write the
> virus and do nothing more is an invisible scenario to most people...
> that's why it gets left out... if you prefer, you can think of it another
> way - when most people talk about virus writers they *aren't* talking
> about the ones who only write the virus and nothing more...
>
> (or you could go on a crusade to correct everyone's misuse of
> terminology)
To what end? In yet another failed attempt to gain some sort of credibility
on Usenet?
The whole "I was/am Raid" (whoever the hell "Raid" is or was) thing hasn't
worked out too well for him so far, so I doubt any feeble attempts he may
make to correct people's "terminology" will be taken very seriously either.
Matters Not
> Matters Not wrote:
> [snip]
>> He can't. His ego won't allow it. You may not have noticed but he
>> got shredded a little while back in this and some other groups, and
>> he STILL hasn't gotten over it.
>
> being 'shredded' by an army of pseudonymous trolls who flood this
> group with crap doesn't really count...
"pseudonym trolls" or not, they still handed him his ass on a platter,
knowledge-wise.
>> (He'll deny the above of course, but I read it all. He made the
>> mistake of challenging the "wrong" people. People who have probably
>> forgotten more than he'll ever know, and got his ass handed to him
>> on a silver platter.)
>
> you read it all, did you...
Yep.
>> you are?
Matters Not. :-)
> i've been here for 10 years and i don't recognize you as being a
> regular here, nor was there a preponderance of alt.comp.virus regulars
> participating in the 'shredding' of which you speak... i humbly
> suggest that you haven't been here long enough to distinguish the
> truly knowledgeable people in this group from the flash mob of
> pretenders...
Oh. So I guess *I'm* a troll now? I saw what I saw. And what I saw was
Dustin pick a fight with the "wrong" people.
> if you were a regular or even someone who'd been here long enough to
> know what's what, you'd never have bothered to read it all...
Believe it or not? Some people actually *do* enjoy lurking in newsgroups,
and only post if they feel they have something to add.
You are certainly free to ignore me, and/or declare me a troll. Nothing I
can do about it. Nor do I care to.
Heather
"Matters Not" <Matte...@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:J5SdnfFit8a-ECze...@comcast.com...
> kurt wismer wrote:
>
>> being 'shredded' by an army of pseudonymous trolls who flood this
>> group with crap doesn't really count...
>
> "pseudonym trolls" or not, they still handed him his ass on a platter,
> knowledge-wise.
I don't know what posts you were reading, but I would say it most definitely
was the other way around!! They were boorish, rude ne'er-do-wells, whose
only claim to fame is to disrupt news groups. I thought Dustin handled
their asinine attacks rather well.....if one can *handle* fools well.
To answer your second statement.....I don't recall Dustin *picking a
fight*....he was wasting his time trying to answer those dolts.
When you have been around as long as Kurt and quite a few of us have, then
you are entitled to make a judgment.....but as you obviously do NOT know the
history of this group, I would suggest you keep your opinions to9 yourself!!
(and I was being polite....seeing as it is still the Xmas Season).
We will still be here when you are long gone and quickly forgotten....Mr.
"Anonymous Matters Not". We tend to use our real names, btw. But perhaps
that takes more guts than you possess. Wussie!!
Heather
Matters Not
> "Matters Not" <Matte...@none.invalid> wrote in message
> news:J5SdnfFit8a-ECze...@comcast.com...
>> kurt wismer wrote:
>>
>>> being 'shredded' by an army of pseudonymous trolls who flood this
>>> group with crap doesn't really count...
>>
>> "pseudonym trolls" or not, they still handed him his ass on a
>> platter, knowledge-wise.
>
> I don't know what posts you were reading, but I would say it most
> definitely was the other way around!! They were boorish, rude
> ne'er-do-wells, whose only claim to fame is to disrupt news groups. I
> thought Dustin handled their asinine attacks rather well.....if one
> can *handle* fools well.
I offered my opinion of what I read. Your opinion differs from mine.
That's not unexpected.
> To answer your second statement.....I don't recall Dustin *picking a
> fight*....he was wasting his time trying to answer those dolts.
>
> When you have been around as long as Kurt and quite a few of us have,
> then you are entitled to make a judgment.....but as you obviously do
> NOT know the history of this group, I would suggest you keep your
> opinions to9 yourself!! (and I was being polite....seeing as it is
> still the Xmas Season).
Just because one does not ordinarily post to a group, does not preclude one
from being "around long enough" to know what it's about. It's called
"lurking". Lurking and posting are two different things, Heather.
> We will still be here when you are long gone and quickly
> forgotten....Mr. "Anonymous Matters Not". We tend to use our real
> names, btw. But perhaps that takes more guts than you possess. Wussie!!
Nice. Name calling. So which is it? Are you a Dustin sock, or a
sycophant? Either way, my opinion is to be disregarded because I'm "new" to
the group, right?
By the way? Dustin always hated it when his betters refered to him as
"Dustbin". Something I have never done. Hopefully he will properly
chastise you, the way he did them, for throwing name-insults around.
And if I'm trolling? Please explain why I have NOT cross-posted the
"appropriate" groups back into this mess.
And could you, or some other sycophant please explain why Dustin has taken
to asking people to, "have fun with the cotse domain" if he's such a great
guy?
Message ID is available upon request, or you could just look in this, and
those 'other' groups for the following subject line:
Return to sender .... Kadaitcha Twit"
(Fuck with Stephen Gielda and cotse. Yeah. THAT would be smart.) ROFL!
OH. And learn how to post, "Heather". This was a MESS.
I cleaned it up for you.
<snip>
optikl
> most people are only aware of virus writers in so far as they're the
> ones who write the viruses that cause people so many problems... for
> those viruses to cause problems they have to 'get out'... for them to
> get out *somebody* has to have been careless, ignorant, or malicious...
>
> the distinction you bring to the table of folks who only write the virus
> and do nothing more is an invisible scenario to most people... that's
> why it gets left out... if you prefer, you can think of it another way -
> when most people talk about virus writers they *aren't* talking about
> the ones who only write the virus and nothing more...
>
>
One only has to go through the archives on a.c.v to find multiple posts
written by Dustin, when he was RaiD, denegrating those on the receiving
end of a bad malware experience. I also recall posts in which RaiD
professes a hate for people in general. Those epistles tell a lot about
a person who supposedly was into it only for the challenge.
kurt wismer
> kurt wismer wrote:
>>Matters Not wrote:
>>[snip]
>>
>>>He can't. His ego won't allow it. You may not have noticed but he
>>>got shredded a little while back in this and some other groups, and
>>>he STILL hasn't gotten over it.
>>
>>being 'shredded' by an army of pseudonymous trolls who flood this
>>group with crap doesn't really count...
>
> "pseudonym trolls" or not, they still handed him his ass on a platter,
> knowledge-wise.
as judged by a newbie...
[snip]
>>i've been here for 10 years and i don't recognize you as being a
>>regular here, nor was there a preponderance of alt.comp.virus regulars
>>participating in the 'shredding' of which you speak... i humbly
>>suggest that you haven't been here long enough to distinguish the
>>truly knowledgeable people in this group from the flash mob of
>>pretenders...
>
> Oh. So I guess *I'm* a troll now?
if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
> I saw what I saw. And what I saw was
> Dustin pick a fight with the "wrong" people.
you saw what you saw? the classic refrain of those unfamiliar with the
subjectivity of perception...
>>if you were a regular or even someone who'd been here long enough to
>>know what's what, you'd never have bothered to read it all...
>
> Believe it or not? Some people actually *do* enjoy lurking in newsgroups,
> and only post if they feel they have something to add.
nice try, but you've failed to build reasonable doubt in your newbie-ness...
Matters Not
> kurt wismer wrote:
>
>> most people are only aware of virus writers in so far as they're the
>> ones who write the viruses that cause people so many problems... for
>> those viruses to cause problems they have to 'get out'... for them to
>> get out *somebody* has to have been careless, ignorant, or
>> malicious... the distinction you bring to the table of folks who only
>> write the
>> virus and do nothing more is an invisible scenario to most people...
>> that's why it gets left out... if you prefer, you can think of it
>> another way - when most people talk about virus writers they
>> *aren't* talking about the ones who only write the virus and nothing
>> more...
> One only has to go through the archives on a.c.v to find multiple
> posts written by Dustin, when he was RaiD, denegrating those on the
> receiving end of a bad malware experience.
Yup. I did a little google-diving myself during the time Dustin was getting
his clock cleaned. Wasn't pretty.
> I also recall posts in
> which RaiD professes a hate for people in general.
Yup. And if Dustin really is/was "raid" .... he sure as heck shouldn't be
parading that nym around like it's some kind of badge of honor.
If I were him, I'd be trying to create as much distance between "raid" and
myself as is humanly possible. But then, I'm not an egomaniacal sociopath
who doesn't know when to leave things alone.
> Those epistles
> tell a lot about a person who supposedly was into it only for the
> challenge.
Yup. And I'm still waiting for Dustin (or one of his socks/sycophants) to
tell me why anyone would go to the trouble of "coding" a virus, while having
no intention of turning it loose. Doesn't wash. I mean, what are ya gonna
do with it? Send it to yourself via email, execute it, and destroy your
*own* stuff?
Nothing but "crickets" on that question, and nothing but crickets on why
Dustin advocated others to, "have some fun with the cotse domain" earlier
today.
Why so quiet, Dustin?
Matters Not
> Matters Not wrote:
>> kurt wismer wrote:
>>> Matters Not wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> He can't. His ego won't allow it. You may not have noticed but he
>>>> got shredded a little while back in this and some other groups, and
>>>> he STILL hasn't gotten over it.
>>>
>>> being 'shredded' by an army of pseudonymous trolls who flood this
>>> group with crap doesn't really count...
>>
>> "pseudonym trolls" or not, they still handed him his ass on a
>> platter, knowledge-wise.
>
> as judged by a newbie...
Who likely has also forgotten more than you will ever know. :-)
"Newbie" is a relative term as it pertains to newsgroups. While I'm
admittedly a "newbie" poster, I'm most certainly not a "newbie" lurker.
> [snip]
>>> i've been here for 10 years and i don't recognize you as being a
>>> regular here, nor was there a preponderance of alt.comp.virus
>>> regulars participating in the 'shredding' of which you speak... i
>>> humbly suggest that you haven't been here long enough to
>>> distinguish the truly knowledgeable people in this group from the
>>> flash mob of pretenders...
>>
>> Oh. So I guess *I'm* a troll now?
>
> if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
But doesn't set follow-ups or cross-post like a duck?
>> I saw what I saw. And what I saw was
>> Dustin pick a fight with the "wrong" people.
>
> you saw what you saw? the classic refrain of those unfamiliar with the
> subjectivity of perception...
Familiarize me. Then tell me all about how Dustin is such a great guy these
days. Then, when you're all done with that, explain to me why he suggested
others, "have a little fun with the cotse domain" earlier today. Or can't
he speak for himself?
>>> if you were a regular or even someone who'd been here long enough to
>>> know what's what, you'd never have bothered to read it all...
>>
>> Believe it or not? Some people actually *do* enjoy lurking in
>> newsgroups, and only post if they feel they have something to add.
>
> nice try, but you've failed to build reasonable doubt in your
> newbie-ness...
Other than having never set follow-ups, nor crossposted, I don't know how I
can prove that I'm any more sincere in what I write.
Your opinion may vary. That's to be expected.
Why so quiet, Dustin?
Heather
"Matters Not" <Matte...@none.invalid> wrote in message
> Heather wrote:
>
>> I don't know what posts you were reading, but I would say it most
>> definitely was the other way around!! They were boorish, rude
>> ne'er-do-wells, whose only claim to fame is to disrupt news groups. I
>> thought Dustin handled their asinine attacks rather well.....if one
>> can *handle* fools well.
>
> I offered my opinion of what I read. Your opinion differs from mine.
> That's not unexpected.
>
>> To answer your second statement.....I don't recall Dustin *picking a
>> fight*....he was wasting his time trying to answer those dolts.
>>
> one from being "around long enough" to know what it's about. >It's called
> "lurking". Lurking and posting are two different things, >Heather.
I know that, thank you. So how long have you lurked in the shadows?
>
> Nice. Name calling. Either way, my opinion is to be disregarded >
> because I'm "new" to the group, right? <<
Wussie?? You are that sheltered that you think that *wussie* is
name-calling? Best you stick to lurking then. And if one never
posts.....but just claims to lurk....how would we know whether it was for a
day or 10 years??
>
> By the way? Dustin always hated it when those losers referred to him as
> "Dustbin". Something I have never done. Hopefully he will properly
> chastise you, the way he did them, for throwing name-insults around.
What *name-insult*?? Wussie? Anonymous?? And I really doubt that Dustin
will *chastise* me. That is quite amusing. And no, I don't have to flatter
him. People earn my respect or dislike by what and how they post. I have
no need to fawn over anyone.
>
> And if I'm trolling? Please explain why I have NOT cross-posted the
> "appropriate" groups back into this mess.
>
I never said you were a troll. And I have those other groups blocked, so I
wouldn't know what (or whether) you cross-posted. Are you a member of one
of those useless groups?
Heather
PS....I corrected your spelling.
kurt wismer
> Heather wrote:
>>"Matters Not" <Matte...@none.invalid> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>>being 'shredded' by an army of pseudonymous trolls who flood this
>>>>group with crap doesn't really count...
>>>
>>>"pseudonym trolls" or not, they still handed him his ass on a
>>>platter, knowledge-wise.
>>
>>I don't know what posts you were reading, but I would say it most
>>definitely was the other way around!! They were boorish, rude
>>ne'er-do-wells, whose only claim to fame is to disrupt news groups. I
>>thought Dustin handled their asinine attacks rather well.....if one
>>can *handle* fools well.
>
> I offered my opinion of what I read. Your opinion differs from mine.
> That's not unexpected.
indeed... opinions are like assholes - everybody's got one...
[snip]
> Nice. Name calling. So which is it? Are you a Dustin sock, or a
> sycophant? Either way, my opinion is to be disregarded because I'm "new" to
> the group, right?
no, your opinion is discounted because you give credit to obvious ad
hominem attacks...
[snip]
> And if I'm trolling? Please explain why I have NOT cross-posted the
> "appropriate" groups back into this mess.
not all trolling involves that kind of behaviour...
> And could you, or some other sycophant please explain why Dustin has taken
> to asking people to, "have fun with the cotse domain" if he's such a great
> guy?
because it's an anonymizing service - and while i recognize the need for
anonymity as a means of protecting certain freedoms, i also recognize
the fact that in practice such tools are mostly used by online bullies
who are afraid to face the consequences of their net-abuse...
Matters Not
<snip>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670
Change newsreaders.
Either that or fix your line wrap (72 would be "normal") and install OE
"quotefix" (Google for it.)
Then try again.
<snip>
kurt wismer
> kurt wismer wrote:
>>Dustin Cook wrote:
>>[snip]
>>
>>>When I was writing viruses, I didn't have any particular targets in
>>>mind. I wasn't "out to get you". I didn't consider myself a vandal
>>>then either, and I really don't agree with the simpleton mindset you
>>>seem to have with regard to it.
>>
>>if one only writes and doesn't spread then indeed "vandal" is a
>>mischaracterization...
>
> Where's the "payload" come into play by simply writing a virus?
another newbie-clue - a payload in the computer virus context is a
function performed by a virus in addition to self-replication... a great
many viruses have no payload whatsoever...
> How would one test it? By deliberately infecting one's own machine? That
> seems kinda silly.
it may seem silly to you, but to me that's just another newbie-clue
(clue that you're a newbie to this group)... when you know what you're
doing and you have the time to do things properly infecting your own
machine for testing purposes isn't a big deal...
>>however, if one helps others who do spread, then accomplice is not a
>>mischaracterization...
>
> Writing a virus while having no intentions of distributing it would be at
> best, a waste of time.
time you enjoy wasting isn't wasted time...
[snip]
>>most people are only aware of virus writers in so far as they're the
>>ones who write the viruses that cause people so many problems... for
>>those viruses to cause problems they have to 'get out'... for them to
>>get out *somebody* has to have been careless, ignorant, or
>>malicious...
>>the distinction you bring to the table of folks who only write the
>>virus and do nothing more is an invisible scenario to most people...
>>that's why it gets left out... if you prefer, you can think of it another
>>way - when most people talk about virus writers they *aren't* talking
>>about the ones who only write the virus and nothing more...
>>
>>(or you could go on a crusade to correct everyone's misuse of
>>terminology)
>
> To what end? In yet another failed attempt to gain some sort of credibility
> on Usenet?
>
> The whole "I was/am Raid" (whoever the hell "Raid" is or was) thing hasn't
> worked out too well for him so far, so I doubt any feeble attempts he may
> make to correct people's "terminology" will be taken very seriously either.
and yet another newbie-clue... established regulars in this group are
very familiar with the name "raid"... it didn't 'work out' in the
threads to which you refer because the people involved in those threads
were interested only in flaming, not rational discourse...
Matters Not
> Matters Not wrote:
>> Heather wrote:
>>> "Matters Not" <Matte...@none.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> kurt wismer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> being 'shredded' by an army of pseudonymous trolls who flood this
>>>>> group with crap doesn't really count...
>>>>
>>>> "pseudonym trolls" or not, they still handed him his ass on a
>>>> platter, knowledge-wise.
>>>
>>> I don't know what posts you were reading, but I would say it most
>>> definitely was the other way around!! They were boorish, rude
>>> ne'er-do-wells, whose only claim to fame is to disrupt news groups.
>>> I thought Dustin handled their asinine attacks rather well.....if
>>> one can *handle* fools well.
>>
>> I offered my opinion of what I read. Your opinion differs from mine.
>> That's not unexpected.
>
> indeed... opinions are like assholes - everybody's got one...
And I was replying to "Heather", not you. Having trouble following along,
or did you forget to change socks?
<snip>
>> Either way, my opinion is to be disregarded because I'm
>> "new" to the group, right?
>
> no, your opinion is discounted because you give credit to obvious ad
> hominem attacks...
Where did I do that? Point it out. You won't. Because you can't.
> [snip]
>> And if I'm trolling? Please explain why I have NOT cross-posted the
>> "appropriate" groups back into this mess.
>
> not all trolling involves that kind of behaviour...
But it almost always involves responding to messages out of sequence and
context doesn't it? Who's guilty of that? Not me.
>> And could you, or some other sycophant please explain why Dustin has
>> taken to asking people to, "have fun with the cotse domain" if he's
>> such a great guy?
>
> because it's an anonymizing service - and while i recognize the need
> for anonymity as a means of protecting certain freedoms, i also
> recognize the fact that in practice such tools are mostly used by
> online bullies who are afraid to face the consequences of their
> net-abuse...
So? By your logic, I am to presume that YOU think it's OK for Dustin (the
admitted virus writer) to encourage an attack an innocent 3rd-party (cotse)
for allowing his (Dustin's) detractors to remain anonomous?
Do you detect any flaws in your <ahem> "logic" there?
Probably not. You're obviously too caught up in that, "He's a newbie poster
...he can't possibly know anything" crap, to open your mind and form an
original thought.
kurt wismer
> kurt wismer wrote:
>>Matters Not wrote:
[snip]
>>>platter, knowledge-wise.
>>
>>as judged by a newbie...
>
> Who likely has also forgotten more than you will ever know. :-)
>
> "Newbie" is a relative term as it pertains to newsgroups. While I'm
> admittedly a "newbie" poster, I'm most certainly not a "newbie" lurker.
your already admitted ignorance of the characters (raid) and culture
(disrespect of ad hominems) of this group prove otherwise....
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>i've been here for 10 years and i don't recognize you as being a
>>>>regular here, nor was there a preponderance of alt.comp.virus
>>>>regulars participating in the 'shredding' of which you speak... i
>>>>humbly suggest that you haven't been here long enough to
>>>>distinguish the truly knowledgeable people in this group from the
>>>>flash mob of pretenders...
>>>
>>>Oh. So I guess *I'm* a troll now?
>>
>>if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
>
> But doesn't set follow-ups or cross-post like a duck?
trolling has nothing in particular to do with follow-ups or cross
posting... if you think otherwise you're not only a newbie to this group
but to usenet itself...
>>>I saw what I saw. And what I saw was
>>>Dustin pick a fight with the "wrong" people.
>>
>>you saw what you saw? the classic refrain of those unfamiliar with the
>>subjectivity of perception...
>
>
> Familiarize me.
what you see is not always what is real... what you looked at was a
deluge of ad hominem attacks that most wouldn't have even bothered to
read... you interpreted it in such a way that you gave trolls credit for
their contributions when they deserved none...
> Then tell me all about how Dustin is such a great guy these
> days.
i have no insight into what calibre of man he is...
> Then, when you're all done with that, explain to me why he suggested
> others, "have a little fun with the cotse domain" earlier today. Or can't
> he speak for himself?
i'm sure he can... perhaps you should ask him instead of me...
[snip]
>>nice try, but you've failed to build reasonable doubt in your
>>newbie-ness...
>
> Other than having never set follow-ups, nor crossposted, I don't know how I
> can prove that I'm any more sincere in what I write.
??? what does any of that have to do with you being a newbie?
Matters Not
> Matters Not wrote:
>> kurt wismer wrote:
>>> Dustin Cook wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> When I was writing viruses, I didn't have any particular targets in
>>>> mind. I wasn't "out to get you". I didn't consider myself a vandal
>>>> then either, and I really don't agree with the simpleton mindset
>>>> you seem to have with regard to it.
>>>
>>> if one only writes and doesn't spread then indeed "vandal" is a
>>> mischaracterization...
>>
>> Where's the "payload" come into play by simply writing a virus?
>
> another newbie-clue -
Oye.
Matters Not
> Matters Not wrote:
>> kurt wismer wrote:
>>> Matters Not wrote:
> [snip]
>>>> "pseudonym trolls" or not, they still handed him his ass on a
>>>> platter, knowledge-wise.
>>>
>>> as judged by a newbie...
>>
>> Who likely has also forgotten more than you will ever know. :-)
>>
>> "Newbie" is a relative term as it pertains to newsgroups. While I'm
>> admittedly a "newbie" poster, I'm most certainly not a "newbie"
>> lurker.
>
> your already admitted ignorance of the characters (raid) and culture
> (disrespect of ad hominems) of this group prove otherwise....
I'm growing weary of asking you to prove this kind of statement.
<snip>
kurt wismer
??? relevance?
virus writers who only write the virus and nothing more do exist...
such virus writers are essentially off the general publics radar as the
aren't the ones causing the problems...
the comments you quoted were talking about why the general public lumps
all virus writers together... raid's motives, whatever they may have
been, seem like a non-sequitur...
kurt wismer
[snip]
> Yup. And I'm still waiting for Dustin (or one of his socks/sycophants) to
> tell me why anyone would go to the trouble of "coding" a virus, while having
> no intention of turning it loose. Doesn't wash. I mean, what are ya gonna
> do with it? Send it to yourself via email, execute it, and destroy your
> *own* stuff?
lets try an analogy... i fold paper... origami is one of my hobbies, i
can spend an hour or more on a single model, and yet the end products
aren't much more than garbage to me most of the time... i'm more
interested in the process/activity than the end result...
is there nothing you do that's similar?
Matters Not
> optikl wrote:
>> kurt wismer wrote:
>>
>>> most people are only aware of virus writers in so far as they're the
>>> ones who write the viruses that cause people so many problems... for
>>> those viruses to cause problems they have to 'get out'... for them
>>> to get out *somebody* has to have been careless, ignorant, or
>>> malicious... the distinction you bring to the table of folks who only
>>> write the
>>> virus and do nothing more is an invisible scenario to most people...
>>> that's why it gets left out... if you prefer, you can think of it
>>> another way - when most people talk about virus writers they
>>> *aren't* talking about the ones who only write the virus and
>>> nothing more...
>> One only has to go through the archives on a.c.v to find multiple
>> posts written by Dustin, when he was RaiD, denegrating those on the
>> receiving end of a bad malware experience. I also recall posts in
>> which RaiD professes a hate for people in general. Those epistles
>> tell a lot about a person who supposedly was into it only for the
>> challenge.
>
> ??? relevance?
>
> virus writers who only write the virus and nothing more do exist...
If that's true? It's one of the saddest things I've EVER learned.
> such virus writers are essentially off the general publics radar as
> the aren't the ones causing the problems...
OK. Let's give you that. Now tell me.... WHAT, exactly, does a virus
writer who merely writes viruses without NO intent to distribute them
accomplish?
> the comments you quoted were talking about why the general public
> lumps all virus writers together... raid's motives, whatever they may
> have been, seem like a non-sequitur...
EVERYTHING you post seems like a non-sequiter to me. The only common theme
you have going is some inexplicable need to either apologize for, or just
flat out kiss, Dustin's ass.
Are you him? Or is he just your hero?
Matters Not
> Matters Not wrote:
> [snip]
>> Yup. And I'm still waiting for Dustin (or one of his
>> socks/sycophants) to tell me why anyone would go to the trouble of
>> "coding" a virus, while having no intention of turning it loose. Doesn't
>> wash. I mean, what are ya gonna do with it? Send it to
>> yourself via email, execute it, and destroy your *own* stuff?
>
> lets try an analogy... i fold paper... origami is one of my hobbies, i
> can spend an hour or more on a single model, and yet the end products
> aren't much more than garbage to me most of the time... i'm more
> interested in the process/activity than the end result...
But you don't FORCE YOUR GARBAGE on people who don't want it, do you?
That's a terrible analogy.
> is there nothing you do that's similar?
Of course not. I'm sane. I don't set about to create things that are
potentially destructive.
A better anolgy would have been for you to tell me you create pipe-bombs,
but you only explode them in your OWN house.
You're an idiot.
And a sick one at that.
Heather
"Matters Not" <Matte...@none.invalid> wrote in message
Why? I like OE. I changed the line wrap as you suggested.....and I
have tried OE Quotefix a couple of times and didn't a) care for it, or
b) see that it made any significant difference.
And I am not about to *try again*. Not interested.
Matters Not
> "Matters Not" <Matte...@none.invalid> wrote in message
> news:DPadnUHAbb7...@comcast.com...
>> Heather wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670
>>
>> Change newsreaders.
>>
>> Either that or fix your line wrap (72 would be "normal") and install
>> OE "quotefix" (Google for it.)
>>
>> Then try again.
>
> Why? I like OE. I changed the line wrap as you suggested.....
And waddaya know? It's all fixed now.
Your welcome.
<snip>
optikl
> optikl wrote:
>
>
> ??? relevance?
>
> virus writers who only write the virus and nothing more do exist...
I suppose, at least in theory....
>
> such virus writers are essentially off the general publics radar as the
> aren't the ones causing the problems...
I suppose, at least in theory.....
>
> the comments you quoted were talking about why the general public lumps
> all virus writers together... raid's motives, whatever they may have
> been, seem like a non-sequitur...
Not to my point they weren't, but OK, I'll give you that.
>
The relevance from my perspective is that Dustin suggested in his recent
posts that the very idea the virus writers are vandals is ludicrous;
they do it for the challenge. All I was pointing out is that, at least
in his case, that assertion seems to belie the truth.
Matters Not
As do the assertions of all his socks/sycophants.
IMO? There's something really "wrong" with anyone who sets about to create
anything destructive. And to my mind, it doesn't really matter whether
there's any inclination on the creator's part to foist it upon others or
not.
There's just something sick about thinking that kinda shit up in the first
place.
Matters Not
> "Matters Not" <Matte...@none.invalid> wrote in
> <news:7fOdnSbLb8u8Zyze...@comcast.com>:
>
>>> no, your opinion is discounted because you give credit to obvious
>>> ad hominem attacks...
>>
>> Where did I do that? Point it out. You won't. Because you
>> can't.
>
> Twas when you asserted that pseudonymous trolls had defeated Dustin
> somehow, "knowledge-wise". Why Dustin plays with them, I dunno, but
> the threads are useless.
Evidently you didn't read the whole thing there, Dustin/sycophant. It went
across like four or five groups. And every time your hero got his faced
pushed in the mud with facts, he'd strip this (and one other group) from the
headers without indicating he'd done so. That's pretty "brave" of him huh?
>
>> "He's a newbie poster ...he can't possibly know anything"
>
> I expect you know /something/.
And rightly so.
optikl
>
> IMO? There's something really "wrong" with anyone who sets about to create
> anything destructive. And to my mind, it doesn't really matter whether
> there's any inclination on the creator's part to foist it upon others or
> not.
>
In my mind it does matter. A lot. My issue here is not that it's not
possible for someone to create malicious code in the privacy of his own
abode, or elsewhere. My issue is that to contend that malicious coding
is *only* the product of a need to challenge oneself intellectually is
pure, unpasteurized bullshit. The intention of those who distribute or
otherwise release malicious code absolutely matters, legally and morally.
Matters Not
I guess we sorta-kinda agree.
The only difference we seem to have (from what you posted just above) is
that I can't see any *sane* reason for creating malicious code to begin
with. I mean, what can the original thought process possibly be other than
something along the lines of ..."Hey? I know how to write this stuff. Now
let me see if I can fuck people up with it."
Certainly we agree that deliberatley propagating the shit is reprehensible.
And anyone who would actually take "pride" in doing so can only be a
sociopath.
kurt wismer
> kurt wismer wrote:
>>Matters Not wrote:
>>>Heather wrote:
>>>>"Matters Not" <Matte...@none.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>kurt wismer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>being 'shredded' by an army of pseudonymous trolls who flood this
>>>>>>group with crap doesn't really count...
>>>>>
>>>>>"pseudonym trolls" or not, they still handed him his ass on a
>>>>>platter, knowledge-wise.
>>>>
>>>>I don't know what posts you were reading, but I would say it most
>>>>definitely was the other way around!! They were boorish, rude
>>>>ne'er-do-wells, whose only claim to fame is to disrupt news groups.
>>>>I thought Dustin handled their asinine attacks rather well.....if
>>>>one can *handle* fools well.
>>>
>>>I offered my opinion of what I read. Your opinion differs from mine.
>>>That's not unexpected.
>>
>>indeed... opinions are like assholes - everybody's got one...
>
> And I was replying to "Heather", not you. Having trouble following along,
> or did you forget to change socks?
do you see a sign anywhere that says "private"?
further, did you complain to heather that you weren't talking to her
when she butted into the conversation you and i were having? no... of
course had you done so you probably would have gotten the same response
you're getting here... this is a public forum and this how conversations
work in public forums...
> <snip>
>>> Either way, my opinion is to be disregarded because I'm
>>>"new" to the group, right?
>>
>>no, your opinion is discounted because you give credit to obvious ad
>>hominem attacks...
>
> Where did I do that? Point it out. You won't. Because you can't.
simplicity itself - this evening i went and read the entire ~400 article
thread where dustin supposedly had his ass handed to him
(http://tinyurl.com/bwhv8)... in that entire thread there was only 1
article posted by those you characterize as the 'wrong people to pick a
fight with' that had anything even remotely resembling a substantial
counter argument to a technical point he made - the rest by those people
were all attacks on him rather than on the arguments he made...
attacking a person rather than the person's arguments is the very
definition of an ad hominem attack...
and in this very thread (<J5SdnfFit8a-ECze...@comcast.com>)
you claim that through those attacks "they still handed him his ass on a
platter, knowledge-wise"...
therefore you give credit to obvious ad hominem attacks...
>>[snip]
>>
>>>And if I'm trolling? Please explain why I have NOT cross-posted the
>>>"appropriate" groups back into this mess.
>>
>>not all trolling involves that kind of behaviour...
>
> But it almost always involves responding to messages out of sequence and
> context doesn't it?
not exactly, no...
trolling is the posting of inflammatory material purely to get a rise
out of people, usually purely for the enjoyment of getting a rise out of
people...
>>>And could you, or some other sycophant please explain why Dustin has
>>>taken to asking people to, "have fun with the cotse domain" if he's
>>>such a great guy?
>>
>>because it's an anonymizing service - and while i recognize the need
>>for anonymity as a means of protecting certain freedoms, i also
>>recognize the fact that in practice such tools are mostly used by
>>online bullies who are afraid to face the consequences of their
>>net-abuse...
>
> So? By your logic, I am to presume that YOU think it's OK for Dustin (the
> admitted virus writer) to encourage an attack an innocent 3rd-party (cotse)
> for allowing his (Dustin's) detractors to remain anonomous?
>
> Do you detect any flaws in your <ahem> "logic" there?
the flaw is in your own logic for making the presumption that you
have... i did not say or imply that i condoned it, only that i
understood it...
> Probably not. You're obviously too caught up in that, "He's a newbie poster
> ...he can't possibly know anything" crap, to open your mind and form an
> original thought.
there's nothing wrong with being a newbie in and of itself - we were all
newbies once...
the problem arises when newbies reject the knowledge that others try to
give them...
kurt wismer
[snip]
> Evidently you didn't read the whole thing there, Dustin/sycophant. It went
> across like four or five groups. And every time your hero got his faced
> pushed in the mud with facts, he'd strip this (and one other group) from the
> headers without indicating he'd done so. That's pretty "brave" of him huh?
having just read the entire thread i can say that this is a false
statement... on a number of occasions he did cut the follow-ups, but he
informed people when he did so and why he did so and the reason he gave
(that participants in those groups did not want that thread in their
groups anymore) was more than just plausible... then others (notably
relic and rebecca) added them back in for the stated purpose of
embarrassing him (<sarcasm>what a worthwhile pursuit</sarcasm>)...
kurt wismer
the ad hominems you only asked once before a few hours ago and i've now
answered it in a reply to the other request... as for raid, in a
different article in this thread
(<R_adne_LU-nEFize...@comcast.com>) you said "whoever the
hell "Raid" is or was" so obviously you are ignorant of who raid is or
was...
as for growing weary so quickly, well, lack of stamina could be another
newbie-clue...
kurt wismer
> kurt wismer wrote:
>>Matters Not wrote:
>>[snip]
>>
>>>Yup. And I'm still waiting for Dustin (or one of his
>>>socks/sycophants) to tell me why anyone would go to the trouble of
>>>"coding" a virus, while having no intention of turning it loose. Doesn't
>>>wash. I mean, what are ya gonna do with it? Send it to
>>>yourself via email, execute it, and destroy your *own* stuff?
>>
>>lets try an analogy... i fold paper... origami is one of my hobbies, i
>>can spend an hour or more on a single model, and yet the end products
>>aren't much more than garbage to me most of the time... i'm more
>>interested in the process/activity than the end result...
>
> But you don't FORCE YOUR GARBAGE on people who don't want it, do you?
you know what - quoting isn't just to make articles look pretty, it's to
maintain context... now go back and read the quote... we're talking
about people who *don't* force their garbage on other people... virus
writers who have no intention of turning their creation's loose...
> That's a terrible analogy.
try it again with context.... (hmmm... what was that you were saying
elsewhere about trolls and context?)
>>is there nothing you do that's similar?
>
> Of course not. I'm sane. I don't set about to create things that are
> potentially destructive.
>
> A better anolgy would have been for you to tell me you create pipe-bombs,
> but you only explode them in your OWN house.
hmmm... perhaps a middle ground - hobby rocketry... potentially
destructive, not particularly *constructive*, yet some people seem to
like it and most don't have any problem with it so long as it's done
responsibly (by which i mean that the potentially destructive materials
are kept away from people and circumstances where that potential could
be realized)...
> You're an idiot.
>
> And a sick one at that.
and you've resorted to ad hominem attacks... kudos on living up to the
example of your peers...
kurt wismer
> kurt wismer wrote:
>>virus writers who only write the virus and nothing more do exist...
>
> If that's true? It's one of the saddest things I've EVER learned.
>
>
>>such virus writers are essentially off the general publics radar as
>>the aren't the ones causing the problems...
>
> OK. Let's give you that. Now tell me.... WHAT, exactly, does a virus
> writer who merely writes viruses without NO intent to distribute them
> accomplish?
advancement of skill (should one consider it that, and many vx'ers do),
among other things...
however, i'm not talking about virus writers with no intent to
distribute - i'm talking about virus writers with no intent to spread...
some forms of distribution are not a problem, such as distributing
clearly labeled samples or source code to those who know how to handle
them safely (which happens all the time in both the vx and av
communities)...
if you include the more benign forms of distribution then one of the
things a virus writer can accomplish is to gain social rewards in the vx
sub-culture...
>>the comments you quoted were talking about why the general public
>>lumps all virus writers together... raid's motives, whatever they may
>>have been, seem like a non-sequitur...
>
> EVERYTHING you post seems like a non-sequiter to me. The only common theme
> you have going is some inexplicable need to either apologize for, or just
> flat out kiss, Dustin's ass.
>
> Are you him? Or is he just your hero?
no, i simply believe a person should deserve the criticisms leveled
against them... the particular criticisms i've seen so far are unfounded
and often just plain wrong...
kurt wismer
[snip]
> The relevance from my perspective is that Dustin suggested in his recent
> posts that the very idea the virus writers are vandals is ludicrous;
> they do it for the challenge. All I was pointing out is that, at least
> in his case, that assertion seems to belie the truth.
ok, that was outside the context that was left...
when dustin speaks about virus writers, in spite of all the contacts he
has had, he's speaking from his own experience... for him perhaps the
technical challenge was the motivation... if his (rather obvious)
misanthropy had been a significant motivating force i would have
expected some signs that he was a spreader... as far as i can recall
there were no such signs...
kurt wismer
[snip]
> IMO? There's something really "wrong" with anyone who sets about to create
> anything destructive. And to my mind, it doesn't really matter whether
> there's any inclination on the creator's part to foist it upon others or
> not.
>
> There's just something sick about thinking that kinda shit up in the first
> place.
in my opinion there's just something sick about h. r. geiger's artwork,
especially the notion that it's somehow 'erotic' - other people disagree...
kurt wismer
[snip]
> I guess we sorta-kinda agree.
>
> The only difference we seem to have (from what you posted just above) is
> that I can't see any *sane* reason for creating malicious code to begin
> with. I mean, what can the original thought process possibly be other than
> something along the lines of ..."Hey? I know how to write this stuff. Now
> let me see if I can fuck people up with it."
for some that may well be the mental process... for others it's more
along the lines of "can i write this stuff?"...
in fact, i suspect most original viruses (ie. not variants) are started
before all the knowledge required to build them is acquired...
> Certainly we agree that deliberatley propagating the shit is reprehensible.
then that makes 3 of us...
Noel Paton
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
Just because YOUR settings can't cope, there's no reason to castigate
Heather for settings which don't suit *you* (76 Character lines are standard
in OE, and through most newsreaders) - and are irrelevant to your rather
puerile attempt to avoid answering her comments.
--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)
Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm
Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
optikl
> optikl wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> The relevance from my perspective is that Dustin suggested in his
>> recent posts that the very idea the virus writers are vandals is
>> ludicrous; they do it for the challenge. All I was pointing out is
>> that, at least in his case, that assertion seems to belie the truth.
>
>
> ok, that was outside the context that was left...
>
> when dustin speaks about virus writers, in spite of all the contacts he
> has had, he's speaking from his own experience... for him perhaps the
> technical challenge was the motivation... if his (rather obvious)
> misanthropy had been a significant motivating force i would have
> expected some signs that he was a spreader... as far as i can recall
> there were no such signs...
>
Dustin only as a rather convenient example and I only used him because
he made it personal, himself, by jumping into the fray. Suffice it to
say I strongly disagree with your last comment based on posts I've read
and I would conclude from the kinds of malware we are seeing today that
misanthropy (I like your choice of nouns) is a much stronger motivator
for the creation of malware than is the technical and intellectual
challenge. Just my observation.
kurt wismer
i was talking about *his* misanthropy and *his* motivations (and to be
honest it looked very much like you were too in your previous comment)...
certainly there are some for whom misanthropy is a motivating factor in
their handling of viruses... was raid such a person? it didn't seem that
way to me... i question his suitability as an example of such motivation
when it's not clear that he himself was so motivated...
Art
wrote:
>i was talking about *his* misanthropy and *his* motivations (and to be
>honest it looked very much like you were too in your previous comment)...
>
>certainly there are some for whom misanthropy is a motivating factor in
>their handling of viruses... was raid such a person? it didn't seem that
>way to me... i question his suitability as an example of such motivation
>when it's not clear that he himself was so motivated...
Raid was so often gleeful when some user took a hit that IMO he was
misanthropic. The fact that he would sometimes offer to help "some
idiot" out with removal of his viruses was merely another opportunity
to display the technical superiority he believed (and still believes)
he has over others ... and not done out of the goodness of his heart.
Dustin Cook
Nil wrote:
> Mindless.
Not having a particular target in mind is mindless? I disagree.
> If you ever wrote a program designed to corrupt or destroy another
> persons data, and allowed it into the wild, you are a vandal.
Aside from incompatabilities, my programs did not corrupt or destroy
data.
The antiavfuck encryption could present a corruption issue if you
tampered with the file after it was infected, but you were warned ahead
of time if you had recieved the virus as I sent it. IE: It included
full documentation explaining everything it would do.
> I recommend that you stop whitewashing your sociopathic tendencies.
I'm not whitewashing anything, and I'm hardly a sociopath. But thanks
for your misunderstanding in any event.
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
Dustin Cook
Matters Not wrote:
> That seems to be an accurate description of Dustin, yes.
And you would certainly be in a position to determine an accurate
description of me right? /sarcasm.
> He refuses to see it that way. He's just going to tell you the same thing
> he told another poster. Some bullshit to the effect that it was, "only
> about writing the code", and nothing more. Oh, but now he's supposedly
> mending his ways by writing an anti-malware program. Yeah. Like anybody
> with a brain would install *anything* written by someone proudly claiming to
> have been a virus writer in the past. That's a hot one.
BugHunter doesn't require installation, it's not windows based. Simply
unzipping it is all that's required to ehh, install it. As for mending
my ways, I've already explained, what I did cannot be undone. Nothing I
do is ever going to undo or alter what I did. Once a virus is released,
the author (in this case, myself) has no control over what happens to
it. I can hope and lie to myself and assume they are all dead now and
only available in a collection, but even I know better. BugHunter
wasn't written to make ammends as you seem to think. I've lost interest
in virus matters, that's all. Viruses are being overtaken by spyware
and browser hijackers anyways. Since I despise people who would write
such lousy software with the intention of financial gain, I decided to
see what could be done about it. Hence, was created BugHunter.
As for people being worried about using it, Yes I'm sure many were.
Some individuals however who know me, could trust that what I said in
the documentation is what it would do. Despite what you seem to think I
am, I wasn't one of the Vxers who spread his creations all over town
and infected anyone I could. I put them on a website, as a .zip file,
with documentation AND! I disabled them from doing anything without you
first reading the documentation and jumping thru a few hoops. IE: My
viruses were not able to do a damn thing to you, even if you clicked on
one. Had you been here lurking for as long as you claim, you would have
already known this. And you'd know the name Raid as well.
> He can't. His ego won't allow it. You may not have noticed but he got
> shredded a little while back in this and some other groups, and he STILL
> hasn't gotten over it.
I was shredded in what way? Not on a technical merit, that's for sure.
Your friends are better at middle schoolyard tauntings then myself. I
give them credit for such skill, I'm sure it'll take them far in life.
/sarcasm.
> (He'll deny the above of course, but I read it all. He made the mistake of
> challenging the "wrong" people. People who have probably forgotten more
> than he'll ever know, and got his ass handed to him on a silver platter.)
Many people have read the entire thing. No offense, but your friends
were owned on almost every technical point either myself or they
brought up. You simply won't be able to play games with me on a
technical merit. EGO as you seem to think aside, I have no problems
with the knowledge I have, I enjoy having it. and I don't mind putting
people in their place when they want to dance with me, either.
> That shut him up for a little while, but he's back. And has now taken to
> suggesting that people, "have a little fun with the cotse domain." in an
> effort to get even with one of his major detractors.
>
If you think your friends shut me up, your sadly mistaken. Having the
feds down one of my servers over a virus I had nothing to do with,
another clue your a newbie; You don't seem to know anything about that,
either. Didn't shut me up, what makes you think some school aged
children's name calling, etc can?
> So much for turning over a new leaf, huh?
I tell you what, if you can find something BugHunter does that's
malicious in nature that I am hiding, then you can claim I'm still a
wolf in sheeps clothing, but until then.... :)
Dustin Cook
Matters Not wrote:
> So? By your logic, I am to presume that YOU think it's OK for Dustin (the
> admitted virus writer) to encourage an attack an innocent 3rd-party (cotse)
> for allowing his (Dustin's) detractors to remain anonomous?
I'll answer this myself, thanks.
If cotse is forwarding abuse emails to kadaitcha, then it's not
entirely anonymous... And besides, if kadaitcha wants to run his mouth
thru that persons service, what's the harm in a little western style
justice? Do you think, you have the right to hide, and antagonize
anyone you like, without any expectation of retribution of any kind?
Kadaitcha has no respect for any newsgroups he/she posts too. Why
should anyone care if cotse was ddosed to death? Would anybody here
really miss that particular anonymizer? I'm not advocating anything
happen, I'm merely explaining that it can, quiet easily. Nobody is as
untouchable on the net as they seem to think. Any service, any site,
can be downed if enough interest is in doing so.
If your going to play the game, it has consequences. If kadaitcha tried
any of this sillyness on efnet or undernet, downing his ISP would be
the least of his worries.
Dustin Cook
Matters Not wrote:
> Evidently you didn't read the whole thing there, Dustin/sycophant. It went
> across like four or five groups. And every time your hero got his faced
> pushed in the mud with facts, he'd strip this (and one other group) from the
> headers without indicating he'd done so. That's pretty "brave" of him huh?
Apparently you don't read or comprehened so well yourself. I explained
why I snipped cross-posting, and I assure you, it had nothing to do
with saving face. Also, I always explained I was snipping when I did
so, and why.
My face wasn't pushed in the mud with facts either, atleast not on a
technical merit. I simply am unable to keep up with so many "my dick is
bigger then your dick" posts. Besides, it was a lost cause when people
either didn't know who raid is, or assumed I was bullshitting them into
thinking I was him. I was outed years ago. Various individuals here on
alt.comp.virus already knew who I was, the second I posted with my real
name. The only real amusement from your friends was them not knowing
who I am. :)
Dustin Cook
Matters Not wrote:
> Who likely has also forgotten more than you will ever know. :-)
I somehow doubt this.
> "Newbie" is a relative term as it pertains to newsgroups. While I'm
> admittedly a "newbie" poster, I'm most certainly not a "newbie" lurker.
I don't think your a lurker here either. Had you been, you would
already know who Raid is. In fact, you would already be aware someone
outed me several years ago as being Dustin Cook. But you don't appear
to know any of that, so I find it highly unlikly you've lurked here for
10 years or more. Impossible, actually.
Also, I would like for you to show me some posts where my ass was
handed to me. Are you able to find anything wrong with the technical
statements I made? No? I didn't think so.
> But doesn't set follow-ups or cross-post like a duck?
One doesn't have to set follow-ups or cross post to be a troll. :)
> Familiarize me. Then tell me all about how Dustin is such a great guy these
> days. Then, when you're all done with that, explain to me why he suggested
> others, "have a little fun with the cotse domain" earlier today. Or can't
> he speak for himself?
I am speaking for myself. Kadaitcha and his friends wanted to have a
little fun with some newsgroups. I merely suggested putting the shoe on
the other foot. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
> Other than having never set follow-ups, nor crossposted, I don't know how I
> can prove that I'm any more sincere in what I write.
You've already proven you haven't lurked here for nearly as long as you
claim. You would already know who I am otherwise. By your own words
tho, you didn't know who raid was.
> Why so quiet, Dustin?
Hmm... Would it surprise you that much, that I don't hangout on usenet
all day? I do have a job you know. :) and I am disassembling spyware
samples lately in the evening hours. Oh wait, being as you are probably
not a programmer, you wouldn't know what that is either. /sarcasm.
Don't worry tho, I'll speak when I have something to say. I never
needed anyone to defend me then, and I don't now.
Dustin Cook
kurt wismer wrote:
> that's how you see it, but others can and do see it differently... you
> and i both know that you are (or were) acquainted with at least one
> spreader... do you really think the technical challenge alone is the
> motivation behind the spreading? where exactly is the technical
> challenge there?
I know many in Vx/Av circles kurt, as do you. From a technical
challenge standpoint, the challenge in the spreading was to see if the
virus could survive outside of the limited testbed it was accustomed
to. There would be no way to predict ahead of time all of the possible
file formats, OS configurations, and various antivirus software
packages the virus could run into.
While you may disagree, I compare them to the nasa robot experiments.
Until it's out in the real world, you can't honestly say it will or
will not work as designed. So yes, it's a technical challenge not only
to build it, but to make it actually work outside of a confined test
criteria.
> most people are only aware of virus writers in so far as they're the
> ones who write the viruses that cause people so many problems... for
> those viruses to cause problems they have to 'get out'... for them to
> get out *somebody* has to have been careless, ignorant, or malicious...
The media and various antivirus companies are to blame for that, and we
both know this. Some shyster av companies exploit a new virus spread as
a perfect opportunity to bash on the writer, and get alot of free
advertising. It's a two way street really.
> the distinction you bring to the table of folks who only write the virus
> and do nothing more is an invisible scenario to most people... that's
> why it gets left out... if you prefer, you can think of it another way -
> when most people talk about virus writers they *aren't* talking about
> the ones who only write the virus and nothing more...
These would be the same people who think downloading a 128k mp3 sample
from kazaa is how mp3s are supposed to sound. :)
> (or you could go on a crusade to correct everyone's misuse of terminology)
If I can't convince people to remain safe with browsing, I have no
chance in hell of that. :)
Dustin Cook
Matters Not wrote:
> Where's the "payload" come into play by simply writing a virus?
Which payload are you speaking of? Do you assume the word payload means
destruction? Toadie told jokes. Was that a dangerous payload?
> How would one test it? By deliberately infecting one's own machine? That
> seems kinda silly.
Hmm.. Newbie, yes, one tests his code by infecting his/her own machine
in a controlled test. It seems kinda silly to me that you didn't know
this. A virus is a program, and like any other program, the author does
tend to test it on his machine.
> Writing a virus while having no intentions of distributing it would be at
> best, a waste of time.
A waste of time for you, perhaps. I learned much writing them. They
forced me to quit being lazy and memorize the dos int list. Which is a
very handy list to have. I'm not bound or limited by the
compiler/language I'm using. thanks to vx, I can write outside the
box... :)
> Certainly if one's objective is to challenge one's own coding ability, there
> are many other *constructive* ways of doing so.
Learning the dos interrupt list was constructive to me. and that's all
that matters.
With the knowledge gained, I'm able to rebuild a trashed partition
table, fat record, mbr, even work with ntfs when chkdsk won't run. Oh,
and I don't require other peoples programs to do it either.
> To what end? In yet another failed attempt to gain some sort of credibility
> on Usenet?
credibility on usenet? Hmm... I don't think you'll find many/any of us
cared what anyone thought here. Credibility in the scene, is a
different story. And that, I still have. :)
> The whole "I was/am Raid" (whoever the hell "Raid" is or was) thing hasn't
> worked out too well for him so far, so I doubt any feeble attempts he may
> make to correct people's "terminology" will be taken very seriously either.
It's worked out quiet well for me, it provided lots of laughs at your
friends expense. Newbie, if you lurked here at all, you would already
know who Raid is. :)
Dustin Cook
kurt wismer wrote:
> Matters Not wrote:
> [snip]
> > Evidently you didn't read the whole thing there, Dustin/sycophant. It went
> > across like four or five groups. And every time your hero got his faced
> > pushed in the mud with facts, he'd strip this (and one other group) from the
> > headers without indicating he'd done so. That's pretty "brave" of him huh?
>
> having just read the entire thread i can say that this is a false
> statement... on a number of occasions he did cut the follow-ups, but he
> informed people when he did so and why he did so and the reason he gave
> (that participants in those groups did not want that thread in their
> groups anymore) was more than just plausible... then others (notably
> relic and rebecca) added them back in for the stated purpose of
> embarrassing him (<sarcasm>what a worthwhile pursuit</sarcasm>)...
Did you actually expect him to post truthfully Kurt? C'mon now. He
claims to be a lurker, yet has no clue about anything he's talking
about. :) Why bother? Let him think as he wishes, Ignorance knows no
bounds.
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
> --
Dustin Cook
optikl wrote:
> One only has to go through the archives on a.c.v to find multiple posts
> written by Dustin, when he was RaiD, denegrating those on the receiving
> end of a bad malware experience. I also recall posts in which RaiD
> professes a hate for people in general. Those epistles tell a lot about
> a person who supposedly was into it only for the challenge.
I was wondering when you might chime in. Why don't you cut to the chase
and speak freely whats on your mind optikl? Theirs no need to beat
around the bush, We're all "friends" here.
If you have something to say, or something you wish to ask, just come
out and say it...
Dustin Cook
Matters Not wrote:
> Yup. I did a little google-diving myself during the time Dustin was getting
> his clock cleaned. Wasn't pretty.
My clock cleaned? I suppose you have references to this?
> Yup. And if Dustin really is/was "raid" .... he sure as heck shouldn't be
> parading that nym around like it's some kind of badge of honor.
Yes, I really am Raid. I know that's hard for some to believe.. Why
would anyone admit to who they are, when they wrote some nasty software
6+ years ago... Ah well.
In fact, I have no problems with Raid.. it's a good nym, it has respect
on both sides of the fence.. Even my enemies in Vx respect me. Whether
or not an unknown person on usenet does, isn't a concern of mine. If I
was worried about the usenet kiddies, I wouldn't have posted on
alt.comp.virus so many years ago..
> If I were him, I'd be trying to create as much distance between "raid" and
> myself as is humanly possible. But then, I'm not an egomaniacal sociopath
> who doesn't know when to leave things alone.
Your not me. Your just a nobody who has decided to put his two cents in
a public discussion, unable to defend various claims he's already made.
Your credibility is taking a nose dive, assuming you had any to begin
with.
> Yup. And I'm still waiting for Dustin (or one of his socks/sycophants) to
> tell me why anyone would go to the trouble of "coding" a virus, while having
> no intention of turning it loose. Doesn't wash. I mean, what are ya gonna
> do with it? Send it to yourself via email, execute it, and destroy your
> *own* stuff?
You seem to think viruses are difficult to program or something.
Newsflash: They aren't. No secret hardcore code required in most cases.
You also seem to think for some silly reason that viruses are
inherently destructive.. They aren't. I tell you what, why don't you
learn a little more about viruses, and then come birade me for writing
them in the past ok?
> Nothing but "crickets" on that question, and nothing but crickets on why
> Dustin advocated others to, "have some fun with the cotse domain" earlier
> today.
Hey... KDman and fellow trolls used cotse (and cotse was aware of the
abuse brought on via their anonymizer) and didn't do anything about it.
Well, I don't see any harm in various anonymous bots on high bandwidth
connections having a little fun with cotse in return. Where is the
harm? It's okay for people to knowingly abuse cotse, but if anyone
disables cotse, you cry foul? Come now.. that's not how it works. If
your going to abuse other services, and the admin of cotse is aware of
it, kdman was able to prove this was the case by reposting emails sent
to abuse@cotse... so honestly, I see no harm in packeting cotse into
the middle of next year, should any botnets take the notion. If the
administration didn't care that cotse was being used for abuse, they
shouldn't care that various individuals are packeting them to death,
either. What's good for the goose, is indeed good for the gander.
Who would really care if cotse pinged out anyhow? Some anonymous
trolls? If the administration of cotse cared about it at all, they
wouldn't invite trolls to use the service. Since they have no respect
for others, why shouldn't they get some packets? Whats the real harm?
It's just data. *grin*
Dustin Cook
Matters Not wrote:
> But you don't FORCE YOUR GARBAGE on people who don't want it, do you?
And neither did I.
> Of course not. I'm sane. I don't set about to create things that are
> potentially destructive.
Sane is such a relative term.
> A better anolgy would have been for you to tell me you create pipe-bombs,
> but you only explode them in your OWN house.
I don't think pipe bombs is a fair comparison.
I don't know of any viruses which have caused loss of life or limb...
:)
> You're an idiot.
So says the newbie who has no clue. That's rich. :)
Dustin Cook
kurt wismer wrote:
> and you've resorted to ad hominem attacks... kudos on living up to the
> example of your peers...
What did you expect?
Dustin Cook
Matters Not wrote:
> IMO? There's something really "wrong" with anyone who sets about to create
> anything destructive. And to my mind, it doesn't really matter whether
> there's any inclination on the creator's part to foist it upon others or
> not.
I have some saddening news for you. Many scientists are messed up in
your opinion then, those who created the atom bomb. How about the ones
who created the bouncing betty antipersonal weapon? How about missles..
guided missles. Hmm.. they only have one useful purpose, blowing
something/someone up. Perhaps those people should stop too, they could
be hurting people. (sarcasm.. yes... it's just too funny).
If you would like to tell me how Toadie is destructive, I'm all ears.
> There's just something sick about thinking that kinda shit up in the first
> place.
Thank God some sick individiduals realized gun powder could project
metal towards someone, huh? If it wasn't for that, your freedom to post
here might not exist.
Dustin Cook
optikl wrote:
> In my mind it does matter. A lot. My issue here is not that it's not
> possible for someone to create malicious code in the privacy of his own
> abode, or elsewhere. My issue is that to contend that malicious coding
> is *only* the product of a need to challenge oneself intellectually is
> pure, unpasteurized bullshit. The intention of those who distribute or
> otherwise release malicious code absolutely matters, legally and morally.
Then I agree to disagree with you, bullshit claim aside. As for
legally, The reason I'm not in jail is because I never broke the law.
If I had, I'd have already gone the way of Vicoden. I did not
maliciously spread them. I posted them, clearly labeled, documentation
included, replication/payload disabled binaries for those interested to
study. While you might think it's a moral delimma, I do not.
Dustin Cook
Matters Not wrote:
> The only difference we seem to have (from what you posted just above) is
> that I can't see any *sane* reason for creating malicious code to begin
> with. I mean, what can the original thought process possibly be other than
> something along the lines of ..."Hey? I know how to write this stuff. Now
> let me see if I can fuck people up with it."
To a simpleton like yourself, that is what you would assume.
Understandable.
> Certainly we agree that deliberatley propagating the shit is reprehensible.
> And anyone who would actually take "pride" in doing so can only be a
> sociopath.
Hmm... I just don't know what to say... Other then I need more coffee.
:)
FYI, You do realize your whining/ranting/whatever about something I did
almost 7+ years ago now right? Are you still mad at Einstein for the
formula to the atom bomb?
kurt wismer
>>honest it looked very much like you were too in your previous comment)...
>>
>>certainly there are some for whom misanthropy is a motivating factor in
>>their handling of viruses... was raid such a person? it didn't seem that
>>way to me... i question his suitability as an example of such motivation
>>when it's not clear that he himself was so motivated...
>
> Raid was so often gleeful when some user took a hit that IMO he was
> misanthropic. The fact that he would sometimes offer to help "some
> idiot" out with removal of his viruses was merely another opportunity
> to display the technical superiority he believed (and still believes)
> he has over others ... and not done out of the goodness of his heart.
raid's misanthropy is not in question (not even by raid), i'm merely
stating that he doesn't seem to have expressed it or been motivated by
it in the way others in the vx world seem to have...
Jim
"Dustin Cook" <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135699624.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jim wrote:
>> "news" <sa...@logicians.com> wrote in message
>> news:V%Nrf.14774$iz3...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>> In reality, the virus writers attack everybody. Only those with security
>> holes are vulnerable.
>> Jim
>
> Security Holes? Viruses are not the same as exploits. Despite the
> claims made by various antivirus companies, they are retro-active in
> protecting you. They do not detect viruses well written that they don't
> already know about. No security in the world is going to prevent a new
> virus from getting control of your box if you execute something
> infected with it. Please don't confuse security holes with a new virus
> in the future, they are not one in the same.
>
I meant by "security holes" as the result of not running an anti-virus
program, by not running a firewall, by not installing security updates to
the OS, and by not checking for malware of all kinds. You, however, mean
those flaws in the operating system which allow malicious software to do bad
things.
Jim
kurt wismer
> kurt wismer wrote:
>
>>that's how you see it, but others can and do see it differently... you
>>and i both know that you are (or were) acquainted with at least one
>>spreader... do you really think the technical challenge alone is the
>>motivation behind the spreading? where exactly is the technical
>>challenge there?
>
> I know many in Vx/Av circles kurt, as do you. From a technical
> challenge standpoint, the challenge in the spreading was to see if the
> virus could survive outside of the limited testbed it was accustomed
> to. There would be no way to predict ahead of time all of the possible
> file formats, OS configurations, and various antivirus software
> packages the virus could run into.
the fact that there would be no way to predict those things underscores
the point that there are no technical measures the virus writer can take
to control those variables and therefore no real technical challenge
(unless you call tilting at windmills a challenge, mr. quixote)...
it's a glorified monte carlo simulation - viruses make it into the wild
more by good luck than good management...
> While you may disagree, I compare them to the nasa robot experiments.
> Until it's out in the real world, you can't honestly say it will or
> will not work as designed. So yes, it's a technical challenge not only
> to build it, but to make it actually work outside of a confined test
> criteria.
are you channeling spanska now? i was sure you were the artist formerly
known as raid...
hmmm, on second thought that's not fair - i seem to recall spanska
claiming it was curiosity, not technical challenge, that motivated his
spreading...
>>most people are only aware of virus writers in so far as they're the
>>ones who write the viruses that cause people so many problems... for
>>those viruses to cause problems they have to 'get out'... for them to
>>get out *somebody* has to have been careless, ignorant, or malicious...
>
> The media and various antivirus companies are to blame for that, and we
> both know this. Some shyster av companies exploit a new virus spread as
> a perfect opportunity to bash on the writer, and get alot of free
> advertising. It's a two way street really.
non-sequitur... if the virus is causing problems then it had to have
gotten out into the wild, and for that to happen then someone had to do
something stupid or malicious and that has nothing to do with the media
or the anti-virus companies... they don't make the problems - at worst
they use the problems for their own benefit... the people who make the
problems are the people who let the viruses loose in the first place...
>>the distinction you bring to the table of folks who only write the virus
>>and do nothing more is an invisible scenario to most people... that's
>>why it gets left out... if you prefer, you can think of it another way -
>>when most people talk about virus writers they *aren't* talking about
>>the ones who only write the virus and nothing more...
>
> These would be the same people who think downloading a 128k mp3 sample
> from kazaa is how mp3s are supposed to sound. :)
yes, these are people who don't know as much as you do in fields in
which you specialize...
(and frankly, 128k is good enough for me... i used to listen to music
through a television speaker connected to a tape player with telephone
wire... not everyone's an audiophile <though i do prefer to do the
ripping myself so as to have consistent quality>)
optikl
Chime in? Gosh, that sounds as though my thoughts are unwelcome here. Oh
well. Anyway, what's on my mind is that I think your assertion that
malicious coders only do what they do for the technical challenge is,
well, bullshit. If it weren't, how would you explain keyloggers and
other backdoors/trojans that are programmed to steal data? BTW, I have
no real interest in making enemies of you or anyone else, I just don't
accept bullshit, regardless from where it originates, my friends
included. Go back and read your post of March 30, 2000 and you'll
perhaps understand where I'm coming from (not that you'd care, nor would
I be hurt that you didn't).
So, that's it. Nothing else to chime in with.
Guillermito
says...
>in my opinion there's just something sick about h. r. geiger's artwork,
Giger, Kurt, please :)
--
G.
Dustin Cook
> Raid was so often gleeful when some user took a hit that IMO he was
> misanthropic. The fact that he would sometimes offer to help "some
> idiot" out with removal of his viruses was merely another opportunity
> to display the technical superiority he believed (and still believes)
> he has over others ... and not done out of the goodness of his heart.
I've always found it amusing when someone tries to steal software, via
a crack or keygen and wound up infected, yes. Why do you leave that
part out? How many individuals infected by my stuff were trying to
steal/cheat an author in the first place? Granted, on occasion some
innocent person was infected. And if I didn't feel he was lieing about
it, I didn't rub his nose in shit helping him to remove it. So much for
glee, Huh Art?
Actually, when I offered to help, it was after so called experts like
you would tell them they were hosed.. the virus couldn't be removed,
etc. I enjoyed showing you guys up. It was fun, I admit it. I see you
still have hard feelings towards me over it. With your crack on my
technical skills. :) You can't imagine how funny it was to read a post
from some expert at mcafee, symantec, etc telling a user he was
screwed; when it was far from the truth.
Irok was a blast, the old 80s high ascii character directory renaming
trick convinced many of you a fellows data was gone. He was able to
recover everything in a few hours, and I believe he was pretty forward
with his comments with regard to those of you who said it was toast.
His data wasn't even touched. Only directory renaming took place, but
it fooled so many of you experts... It's amusing as hell on one side,
but depressing on the other. People pay good money for products mcafee
and symantec provide, and they expect these guys know what they are
doing. I'm but one programmer, why is it I fooled a whole team? Pita...
The trick irok used incidently, had been an old copy protection trick
pre-dating the apple2 personal computers. It really shocked me to see
so many antivirus experts from commercial companies completely fooled
by it. Talk about egg on ones face.
One lone virus writer, fools many programming teams from various well
known antivirus companies, the so called "experts". For shame.
Some of these same companies websites still claim various viruses of
mine were undisinfectable.. Which is impossible. In order for the host
to run, the virus has to disinfect it first. If the virus can disinfect
itself, why couldn't they? Please don't tell me it wasn't important
enough, some of these "undisinfectable" viruses made various wildlists.
So many details you leave out Art... not very fair. Pride you say?
Amusement watching the experts squirm, I says. You should learn to let
things go man, I never intended any personal harm towards you. And
despite your obvious hard feelings towards me, I do not hold the same
towards you.
Dustin Cook
optikl wrote:
> Chime in? Gosh, that sounds as though my thoughts are unwelcome here. Oh
> well. Anyway, what's on my mind is that I think your assertion that
> malicious coders only do what they do for the technical challenge is,
> well, bullshit. If it weren't, how would you explain keyloggers and
> other backdoors/trojans that are programmed to steal data? BTW, I have
> no real interest in making enemies of you or anyone else, I just don't
> accept bullshit, regardless from where it originates, my friends
> included. Go back and read your post of March 30, 2000 and you'll
> perhaps understand where I'm coming from (not that you'd care, nor would
> I be hurt that you didn't).
> So, that's it. Nothing else to chime in with.
I didn't mean to imply your thoughts were unwelcome. It's an open
forum. :)
I don't think I really fit too well into the malicious coder catagory.
I rarely did anything to anyones data. I mainly told jokes, played with
your vga card or something along those lines. Yes, I did employ
encryption designed to make removal difficult; but it wasn't anything
more complex then an xor loop with some constants and the virus body as
the main key. Not very complex at all, imho, but strong enough to fool
many in the professional antivirus community. The date/time stamp of
the host file being used as a seed key did make things interesting...
But, it was intended as a competition between antivirus programmers and
myself. I never really meant for end-users to even notice it that much.
Until various individuals started posting here, and people would tell
them the virus can't be removed; which was always far from the truth.
You could restore your infected file to the byte of it's original self
if you simply knew what you were doing, or what I did previously. A
totally reversable process.
I've never written any keyloggers that were released, and I certainly
didn't condone stealing someones data. I believe you might remember I
chewed Opic out for that pgp key stealing macro virus of his. I thought
it was in poor taste before it was finished. I don't recall any of my
viruses stealing any data, some cpu cycles and hard drive space yes,
but not your data.
I suppose tho, since I did write some viruses, it doesn't really matter
to some if they were intended to be malicious or not. Ah well, can't
please everyone.
I still don't see the point in holding old "wrongs" against me tho. I'm
retired, have been for sometime, I did not release much source code, so
other budding vxers wouldn't be able to use my code to cause harm.
Other then providing them with docs on a website, I have no real issue
with my career. I had a good time for most of it, and I simply got
burned out on it.
Dustin Cook
Jim wrote:
> I meant by "security holes" as the result of not running an anti-virus
> program, by not running a firewall, by not installing security updates to
> the OS, and by not checking for malware of all kinds. You, however, mean
> those flaws in the operating system which allow malicious software to do bad
> things.
> Jim
A firewall will do nothing to stop a virus from entering your machine.
It may prevent said virus from making contact outside your box, but
that's dependent on the firewall in question and the virus. Security
updates to the OS rarely affect a virus's ability to function. An
antivirus program is a good precaution, but it is nothing more then a
precaution. It cannot detect what it doesn't already know. Hueristics
are nice, but I think every one of mine demonstrated, no search string,
no virus knowledge. Free rein on your box.
malware is such a nasty term.. I'm guity of using it myself. :) Virus's
are not the same critter, and you can't handle them the same way...
Dustin Cook
kurt wismer wrote:
> Dustin Cook wrote:
> >>Gates has the CASH to handle it.
> >
> > Money has nothing to do with us. We never coded for money.
>
> yeah, but you're old-school...
And that's a bad thing? :)
Dustin Cook
kurt wismer wrote:
> the fact that there would be no way to predict those things underscores
> the point that there are no technical measures the virus writer can take
> to control those variables and therefore no real technical challenge
> (unless you call tilting at windmills a challenge, mr. quixote)...
Well, you can't predict every situation no.. But you can take an
educated guess as to what may happen depending on some pre-known
factors. It's not foolproof, but it does allow for some limited if you
will, safety against crashes for the virus.
> it's a glorified monte carlo simulation - viruses make it into the wild
> more by good luck than good management...
I tend to disagree. Some viruses did well, albiet being poorly coded.
However, some viruses survived awhile based on their code design.
Speed, efficiency, hiding from the user.
> are you channeling spanska now? i was sure you were the artist formerly
> known as raid...
No.. That's how I see them. Unfinished projects. You mentioned model
rockets in a previous post, I play with those as well. :)
> hmmm, on second thought that's not fair - i seem to recall spanska
> claiming it was curiosity, not technical challenge, that motivated his
> spreading...
It's alot of both...We're very curious individuals.
> non-sequitur... if the virus is causing problems then it had to have
> gotten out into the wild, and for that to happen then someone had to do
> something stupid or malicious and that has nothing to do with the media
> or the anti-virus companies... they don't make the problems - at worst
> they use the problems for their own benefit... the people who make the
> problems are the people who let the viruses loose in the first place...
I wasn't blaming the antivirus companies for everything. Simply
stating, it does tend to provide them alot of free publicity. I agree,
they don't *often* make the problems.
> yes, these are people who don't know as much as you do in fields in
> which you specialize...
Keeping tabs on me? :)
> (and frankly, 128k is good enough for me... i used to listen to music
> through a television speaker connected to a tape player with telephone
> wire... not everyone's an audiophile <though i do prefer to do the
> ripping myself so as to have consistent quality>)
I should send you a sample of our work... Your ears may thank you. :)
Art
<bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Art wrote:
>
>> Raid was so often gleeful when some user took a hit that IMO he was
>> misanthropic. The fact that he would sometimes offer to help "some
>> idiot" out with removal of his viruses was merely another opportunity
>> to display the technical superiority he believed (and still believes)
>> he has over others ... and not done out of the goodness of his heart.
>
>I've always found it amusing when someone tries to steal software, via
>a crack or keygen and wound up infected, yes. Why do you leave that
>part out? How many individuals infected by my stuff were trying to
>steal/cheat an author in the first place?
I have no idea. Probably just a small percentage of users. In any
event, it's stupid to attempt to justify malware authorship, releasing
and spreading on the basis that some people deserve to take hits.
Total bullshit in fact. Multiple wrongs never make things right.
>Granted, on occasion some
>innocent person was infected.
Probably the vast majority of users taking hits are legit home users
and businesses. It's a damn shame.
>And if I didn't feel he was lieing about
>it, I didn't rub his nose in shit helping him to remove it. So much for
>glee, Huh Art?
Wasn't it you who always held typical non-techy users in disdain,
claiming they have no business using a computer? Or was that
one of your buddies? I really don't recall. What I do recall is having
some name calling sessions with the shithead vxers who have that
attitude (and that stupidity).
>Actually, when I offered to help, it was after so called experts like
>you would tell them they were hosed.. the virus couldn't be removed,
I never did that. And I never pretended to be a virus expert. I'm a
retired EE and a home user interested in prevention. That's all. I
learned quite a bit about prevention, so I tried and still sometimes
try to help others.
>etc. I enjoyed showing you guys up. It was fun, I admit it. I see you
>still have hard feelings towards me over it. With your crack on my
>technical skills. :)
You're wrong. I simply notice your endless bluster and bragging about
your technical skills and pointed it out. You haven't changed in that
regard I see :)
>You can't imagine how funny it was to read a post
>from some expert at mcafee, symantec, etc telling a user he was
>screwed; when it was far from the truth.
That must go back before my time. Mostly what I recall back when I
first started here were the truly knowledgable posters. Solomon,
Frisk, Nick, BPB, etc.
>Irok was a blast, the old 80s high ascii character directory renaming
>trick convinced many of you a fellows data was gone. He was able to
>recover everything in a few hours, and I believe he was pretty forward
>with his comments with regard to those of you who said it was toast.
>His data wasn't even touched. Only directory renaming took place, but
>it fooled so many of you experts... It's amusing as hell on one side,
>but depressing on the other. People pay good money for products mcafee
>and symantec provide, and they expect these guys know what they are
>doing. I'm but one programmer, why is it I fooled a whole team? Pita...
>The trick irok used incidently, had been an old copy protection trick
>pre-dating the apple2 personal computers. It really shocked me to see
>so many antivirus experts from commercial companies completely fooled
>by it. Talk about egg on ones face.
Dunno the details about that so I won't comment.
>One lone virus writer, fools many programming teams from various well
>known antivirus companies, the so called "experts". For shame.
At least they were and are on the right side. You weren't.
>Some of these same companies websites still claim various viruses of
>mine were undisinfectable.. Which is impossible. In order for the host
>to run, the virus has to disinfect it first. If the virus can disinfect
>itself, why couldn't they? Please don't tell me it wasn't important
>enough, some of these "undisinfectable" viruses made various wildlists.
>
>So many details you leave out Art... not very fair. Pride you say?
>Amusement watching the experts squirm, I says. You should learn to let
>things go man, I never intended any personal harm towards you. And
>despite your obvious hard feelings towards me, I do not hold the same
>towards you.
I hold no hard feelings toward you. As I've said before, I trust that
you have turned over a new leaf and I wish you well.
Heather
"Noel Paton" <NoelDPs...@crashfixpc.com> wrote in message
news:dou0cu$leo$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
>
> Just because YOUR settings can't cope, there's no reason to castigate
> Heather for settings which don't suit *you* (76 Character lines are
> standard in OE, and through most newsreaders) - and are irrelevant to
> your rather puerile attempt to avoid answering her comments.<<<
Thanks, Noel......it was at 76.....perhaps I will change it back. I
have some things set for less than perfect vision, but that wouldn't
enter Mr. Know-it-all's head.
Best from E. and me. Will write tomorrow.
XX Figgs
kurt wismer
>
> Giger, Kurt, please :)
>
> http://www.hrgiger.com/
aaaahhh! my eyes! and just after my back was starting to feel better
too... i can't win...
kurt wismer
> kurt wismer wrote:
>>the fact that there would be no way to predict those things underscores
>>the point that there are no technical measures the virus writer can take
>>to control those variables and therefore no real technical challenge
>>(unless you call tilting at windmills a challenge, mr. quixote)...
>
> Well, you can't predict every situation no.. But you can take an
> educated guess as to what may happen depending on some pre-known
> factors. It's not foolproof, but it does allow for some limited if you
> will, safety against crashes for the virus.
>>it's a glorified monte carlo simulation - viruses make it into the wild
>>more by good luck than good management...
>
> I tend to disagree. Some viruses did well, albiet being poorly coded.
> However, some viruses survived awhile based on their code design.
> Speed, efficiency, hiding from the user.
i think what's going on here is we're thinking of successful survival in
different terms...
you can do all sorts of things to make an instance of a virus survive on
a machine longer, but nothing you do can affect whether the virus will
get the opportunity to penetrate into the wild in the first place or
whether it will be able to build up it's population after doing so...
[snip]
>>non-sequitur... if the virus is causing problems then it had to have
>>gotten out into the wild, and for that to happen then someone had to do
>>something stupid or malicious and that has nothing to do with the media
>>or the anti-virus companies... they don't make the problems - at worst
>>they use the problems for their own benefit... the people who make the
>>problems are the people who let the viruses loose in the first place...
>
>
> I wasn't blaming the antivirus companies for everything.
no, you were blaming them for something beyond the scope of what i was
talking about... ergo a non-sequitur...
[snip]
>>yes, these are people who don't know as much as you do in fields in
>>which you specialize...
>
> Keeping tabs on me? :)
only in so far as you advertise your presence, your interests, etc...
>>(and frankly, 128k is good enough for me... i used to listen to music
>>through a television speaker connected to a tape player with telephone
>>wire... not everyone's an audiophile <though i do prefer to do the
>>ripping myself so as to have consistent quality>)
>
> I should send you a sample of our work... Your ears may thank you. :)
considering the kind of music i listen to, i very much doubt i'll notice
a difference... what would sound like a quality problem to most is a
normal part of my preferred genre...
kurt wismer
> kurt wismer wrote:
>>Dustin Cook wrote:
>>
>>>>Gates has the CASH to handle it.
>>>
>>>Money has nothing to do with us. We never coded for money.
>>
>>yeah, but you're old-school...
>
>
> And that's a bad thing? :)
only if you're trying to be relevant in todays world...
Dustin Cook
Art wrote:
> I have no idea. Probably just a small percentage of users. In any
> event, it's stupid to attempt to justify malware authorship, releasing
> and spreading on the basis that some people deserve to take hits.
> Total bullshit in fact. Multiple wrongs never make things right.
I would tend to disagree based on the number of posters here infected
by things I wrote who did infact admit they think they got it from some
keygen and/or crack.
While I did release some of my work via a website, I didn't participate
in the actual spreading. To some, thats a difference that doesn't
matter, but to me it does.
Multiple wrongs doesn't make a right, but it sure makes things
interesting.
> Probably the vast majority of users taking hits are legit home users
> and businesses. It's a damn shame.
You do remember how melissa was spread right? As a porn gimmick. Should
you really be surfing porn at work? Unlike you Art, I don't feel the
infectees are always the victims. I've seen far too many systems where
I work to feel that way.
> Wasn't it you who always held typical non-techy users in disdain,
> claiming they have no business using a computer? Or was that
> one of your buddies? I really don't recall. What I do recall is having
> some name calling sessions with the shithead vxers who have that
> attitude (and that stupidity).
Well Art, a computer isn't a toy. and it does require some skill to
properly use one. Even more so now that everyone is connected. Having
illiterate people online in this day and age is dangerous. They run
insecure machines that get comprimised, and don't give a damn that
their machine is spreading malicious software. Why that doesn't bother
you is beyond me.
> You're wrong. I simply notice your endless bluster and bragging about
> your technical skills and pointed it out. You haven't changed in that
> regard I see :)
Why brag? My work is published, it's entirely available for review. I
do have a large set of technical skills, and yes I'm proud of it.
Wouldn't you be?
I've always had a problem with people who label another a braggart
simply because they have some knowledge and actually use it.
> That must go back before my time. Mostly what I recall back when I
> first started here were the truly knowledgable posters. Solomon,
> Frisk, Nick, BPB, etc.
Nope... It wasn't before your time. Speaking of Nick, he was one of the
posters whom was barraded for his ill concieved advice by the user,
once he got his things back in order. Nick weakly defended his
position. I find it humourous you don't remember this. It wasn't that
long ago.
> Dunno the details about that so I won't comment.
I'm not entirely sure... It's not worth looking up.
> At least they were and are on the right side. You weren't.
The right side? So it's black and white to you is it? I never did see
things in such clarity as you. I don't believe the infected users were
always innocent. I've seen far too many of them on the warez scene to
believe it. In fact, beside me is a machine that runs limewire; I've
seen four or five applications now the owner wants me to save, that
he/she downloaded from limewire, complete with working keys. Do you
know why the machine is here? It's infected with klez and a few other
wonderful items. Do you think I consider this user innocent? Not by a
long shot. I've even told them about the dangers of using p2p; they
don't care.
> I hold no hard feelings toward you. As I've said before, I trust that
> you have turned over a new leaf and I wish you well.
Thanks Art. May you and yours have an enjoyable holiday season.
Dustin Cook
Heather wrote:
> Thanks, Noel......it was at 76.....perhaps I will change it back. I
> have some things set for less than perfect vision, but that wouldn't
> enter Mr. Know-it-all's head.
I wouldn't worry about it. The troll's credibility went downhill at a
lightning pace. :)
> Best from E. and me. Will write tomorrow.
I hope things are going well for you!
Dustin Cook
kurt wismer wrote:
> only in so far as you advertise your presence, your interests, etc...
It's only natural for me to pursue other things of interest. I've
always enjoyed music. Movies too, but not as much as a good song.
Various individuals in the napster days would complain that they
weren't concerned that the songs were being traded, but the quality was
so poor. I've made an effort to fix that complaint.
> considering the kind of music i listen to, i very much doubt i'll notice
> a difference... what would sound like a quality problem to most is a
> normal part of my preferred genre...
I'm curious... indeed. What bands do you listen to?
Dustin Cook
»Q« wrote:
> Twas when you asserted that pseudonymous trolls had defeated Dustin
> somehow, "knowledge-wise". Why Dustin plays with them, I dunno, but
> the threads are useless.
That was amusing wasn't it? :)
> > "He's a newbie poster ...he can't possibly know anything"
>
> I expect you know /something/.
I'm sure he knows all kinds of things... but virus writers, myself, and
technical knowledge are areas he's lacking in. We can't know
everything....
Dustin Cook
Matters Not wrote:
> Evidently you didn't read the whole thing there, Dustin/sycophant. It went
> across like four or five groups. And every time your hero got his faced
> pushed in the mud with facts, he'd strip this (and one other group) from the
> headers without indicating he'd done so. That's pretty "brave" of him huh?
Strange. Anyone who doesn't speak on your behalf has to be me? Kurt
already explained the stripping thing, as can anyone else who'd
bothered to look it up. Why do you intentionally try to show otherwise?
Your knowingly trying to bullshit here, and you've been called on it.
Anything to say, troll?
> And rightly so.
*Yawn*
If you think personal attacks towards me count as a win in the
discussion, then what you know wouldn't fill a single 8k eeprom. Good
Day, troll.
optikl
Unlike you Art, I don't feel the
> infectees are always the victims. I've seen far too many systems where
> I work to feel that way.
>
Dustin, hi. Question: If the infectees aren't the victims, who are?
a computer isn't a toy. and it does require some skill to
> properly use one. Even more so now that everyone is connected. Having
> illiterate people online in this day and age is dangerous.
Hi, again. While that may be true, it isn't against the law to be
illiterate and online. Hell, I've seen some of your grammar. But, back
to your point, are you suggesting the dumb and the dangerous ought to be
punished with a dose of some malware? That'll fix 'em.
They run
> insecure machines that get comprimised, and don't give a damn that
> their machine is spreading malicious software. Why that doesn't bother
> you is beyond me.
Well, it might not bother Art, but it bothers me. Of course, if that
fuckin' malware wasn't being spread in the first place, the dumb
wouldn't be so dangerous. You think?
>
> Why brag? My work is published, it's entirely available for review. I
> do have a large set of technical skills, and yes I'm proud of it.
> Wouldn't you be?
Does that mean you're proud of toadie and irok, too?
>
> I've always had a problem with people who label another a braggart
> simply because they have some knowledge and actually use it.
Me, too!
>
> The right side? So it's black and white to you is it? I never did see
> things in such clarity as you. I don't believe the infected users were
> always innocent.
How about sometimes?
I've seen far too many of them on the warez scene to
> believe it.
How do you know the ones on the web sites were infected? And what were
you doing there?
Have a happy new year and may 2006 bring us tons more malware!
Dustin Cook
kurt wismer wrote:
> and yet another newbie-clue... established regulars in this group are
> very familiar with the name "raid"... it didn't 'work out' in the
> threads to which you refer because the people involved in those threads
> were interested only in flaming, not rational discourse...
What can you expect from someone who thinks the SATA controller has
nothing to do with the mainboard chipset? :) IE: Rebecca. *snicker*
That seems to have been the general knowledge level most of them had.
One fellow was proud to do html scripting for a living... I mean c'mon,
it's not like it was a fair fight for them from the get go. The only
option they had was flaming.
Dustin Cook
optikl wrote:
> One only has to go through the archives on a.c.v to find multiple posts
> written by Dustin, when he was RaiD, denegrating those on the receiving
> end of a bad malware experience. I also recall posts in which RaiD
> professes a hate for people in general. Those epistles tell a lot about
> a person who supposedly was into it only for the challenge.
It's convenient to go thru the archives to blast me, but nobody seemed
that interested in the trolling war that took some time and wasted a
large number of posts here... I don't recall seeing you participate
much at all. Yet you do here... I wonder... Tell me optikl, whom do you
play for exactly?
I have my suspicions, but I'd rather you just tell me.
Dustin Cook
optikl wrote:
> I don't wish to make this too personal for anyone here. I was using
> Dustin only as a rather convenient example and I only used him because
> he made it personal, himself, by jumping into the fray. Suffice it to
I didn't make anything personal. I simply disagreed with the posters.
You however, remained quiet during the trolling fight awhile ago, yet
you post now... It's odd. :) But it hasn't gone unnoticed.
> say I strongly disagree with your last comment based on posts I've read
> and I would conclude from the kinds of malware we are seeing today that
> misanthropy (I like your choice of nouns) is a much stronger motivator
we are seeing today? How much exposure to malware do you actually have?
Tell me, are you an end-user... or something else?
Dustin Cook
optikl wrote:
> Dustin, hi. Question: If the infectees aren't the victims, who are?
I don't see things in black and white like you. I don't believe there
are innocent victims. Code has to be executed to do anything. The user
has to execute it. Even with autorun exploits, the user still had to
click.
> Hi, again. While that may be true, it isn't against the law to be
> illiterate and online. Hell, I've seen some of your grammar. But, back
> to your point, are you suggesting the dumb and the dangerous ought to be
> punished with a dose of some malware? That'll fix 'em.
Heh. Nice shot at my poor online grammar. :) Hardly what one could call
illiterate, however. I think I answered my own question with regard to
who's side your playing for, so you'll excuse me for not wasting
anymore time responding to you, right friend? :)
While I have read the rest of your post, I'm not going to reply further
to you. You do raise some good points, and I'd like to answer them..
but you gave yourself away... :)
optikl
Please, tell me whose side that is. If you think it's Kadaitcha, or any
of those other trolls, you need to think again. I'll tell you a bit
about me. I'm very libertarian and that implies I'm very pro
self-defense, but intensely dislike folks who intentionally fuck over
others through unwarranted aggression. That probably covers at least 20%
of the human population and would include those who spread or otherwise
proliferate the malware problem. I have no allegiance to AV companies or
any other companies that profit from the malware problem, although
without them, malware malevolents would have rendered the net a toilet
by now (perhaps they already have). I do believe that people need to
take responsibility for their own security and that means they might
share some responsibility for any malware problem they have, depending
on how they acquired it. But, picking on the easy marks is a cowards
game. And those who proliferate the malware problem are banking on the
easy marks. They need the marks. The marks make them look *special*. So,
that's where I'm coming from. If you don't wish to respond to my
questions, that's fine. It's a free country- well, sort of. But the
genesis of those questions are your posts. That says you are in full
control of the kind of replies you'll get.
optikl
>
> I have my suspicions, but I'd rather you just tell me.
>
> Regards,
> Dustin Cook
> http://bughunter.atspace.org
>
Dustin, I answered it in a previous post. No, I'm not a Kadaitcha
sock-puppet. And I'm certainly not one of his fans.