Let's play a game
Chunky Kibbles
It's called "who else uses un*x so doesn't worry about problems like this?"
Gary (-;
sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Kibbles) wrote:
> It's called "who else uses un*x so doesn't worry about problems like
> this?"
Problems like what?
--
Graham Cluley, Head of Corporate Communications, Sophos Anti-Virus
email: gcl...@sophos.com http://www.sophos.com
US Support: +1 888 SOPHOS 9 UK Support: +44 1235 559933
Chunky Kibbles
Gary (-;
PaX [SlaM]
>> this?"<<<<<<<<<
That a challenge Kibblles?
Pride usuallly arrives just before a fall ..or in the case of
ColdApe....half a ton of f0rking email=]
regards Dalt ;)
Mark Morgan
>
> sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> > In article (Chunky Kibbles) wrote:
>
> >> It's called "who else uses un*x so doesn't worry about problems like
> >> this?"
>
> > Problems like what?
>
>
> Gary (-;
Not quite true. Just not a popular platform for viruses.
The security is usually better and most security exploits are sealed up
quickly. One of the reasons *nix hasn't had as many long term problems
in this arena is the user base is a bit more sophisticated. As it
becomes more user friendly, we'll probably see more people getting
burned by hostile SW. (Most likely by people running as root or
equivalent.)
Of course I prefer a nice Unix box over windows for most tasks outside
of gaming. My time in AV really reinforced that...
--
Mark Morgan
Robert Moir
"Chunky Kibbles" <gjb...@cs.york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8p36cv$ora$1...@pump1.york.ac.uk...
> That whole virus thing
>
> Gary (-;
Who else is a clueless computing student and a wannabe who doesn't know what
the fuck they are talking about?
Chunky Kibbles
Uh. You go for it. I'm running un*x. Do you not think I'm enough of a geek to not have that problem?
Gary (-;
Chunky Kibbles
Conceded. I'm still liable to trojans, and people who're damn stupid are liable to that whole "rm -rf" thing if they always
run as root, but in general, It's not viable to construct a virus for linux...
Hell, last time someone randomly tried hacking my box, I trashed his before he realised what was happening...
Gary (-;
kurt wismer
> sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> > In article <8p2se9$s2i$1...@pump1.york.ac.uk>, gjb...@cs.york.ac.uk (Chunky
> > Kibbles) wrote:
>
> >> It's called "who else uses un*x so doesn't worry about problems like
> >> this?"
>
> > Problems like what?
> That whole virus thing
ah, another poor sap who thinks unix is immune to viruses...
--
"look at me a million times, you think my brain is rabid
coming back to me, they swear to god i am a savage
i don't like the faces well i'm certain now you're clear
they begin to stop me, you won't like it when i stare"
AkHibby
sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <8p2se9$s2i$1...@pump1.york.ac.uk>, gjb...@cs.york.ac.uk
(Chunky
> Kibbles) wrote:
>
> > It's called "who else uses un*x so doesn't worry about problems
like
> > this?"
>
> Problems like what?
>
Ian
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Raid
says...
I was going to keep my mouth shut, but he's a linux wannabe. it seems if
they run linux, or eventually graduate to a different flavor of unix;
they are l33t and should be treated as such. I get such a laugh from
them.
--
Regards,
Raid
www.coderz.net/Raid
(Home of raids VX website and the RSHaCK utility for rainbow six
rogue spear. The only saved campaign editor you'll ever need)
sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Kibbles) wrote:
> It's not viable to construct a virus for linux...
Not strictly correct. Of course, there are a lot less viruses for Linux
than there are for Wintel PCs but that's not because it's more difficult
to write viruses for Linux.
Here are some urls for your reference:
Dr Fred Cohen's paper on viruses and Unix:
http://www.all.net/books/virus/top.html
Kaspersky Labs description of Linux viruses:
http://www.avpve.com/viruses/unix/vit.html#Linux.Vit.4096
http://www.avpve.com/viruses/unix/bliss.html#Linux.Bliss
Symantec descriptions of Linux viruses:
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/cgi-bin/virauto.cgi?vid=11520
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/cgi-bin/virauto.cgi?vid=11521
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/cgi-bin/virauto.cgi?vid=11522
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/cgi-bin/virauto.cgi?vid=11523
and there's lots more info if you go looking for it.
Chunky Kibbles
> On 5 Sep 2000, Chunky Kibbles wrote:
>> sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>> That whole virus thing
> ah, another poor sap who thinks unix is immune to viruses...
It is. As long as you're not stupid.
Defn: Stupid: Anyone who always runs as root.
Gary (-;
Chunky Kibbles
> I was going to keep my mouth shut, but he's a linux wannabe. it seems if
> they run linux, or eventually graduate to a different flavor of unix;
> they are l33t and should be treated as such. I get such a laugh from
> them.
Mmmm... Solaris, omstly
Gary (-;
kurt wismer
no, i'm affraid you haven't a clue what you're talking about.. so long as
users have access to write programs/scripts *somewhere* viruses are
possible on the platform...
virus infectability is inherent to all general purpose computing
platforms, including unix... if you think unix is immune you either don't
understand unix or you don't understand viruses...
Robert Moir
Ok a Slowlaris wannabe. You are still wrong. I suggest you follow the links
Graham was kind enough to post, and learn something.
Raid
Still a wannabe. You should go back to operating systems you somewhat
understand. You seem to know so little about viruses... Sigh.
st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk
wrote:
>
>It's called "who else uses un*x so doesn't worry about problems like this?"
>
>Gary (-;
Er, maybe you are too young to remember Robert Morris' Internet Worm.
It brought the Internet down in 1988 and it was unix based. Given a
similar number of users and installation as Windows, unix would
susceptible to "problems like this".
Steve
--
Steve Wolstenholme
Neural Network Applications for Windows
http://www.tropheus.demon.co.uk
David Mohring
<st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 5 Sep 2000 13:28:41 GMT, Chunky Kibbles <gjb...@cs.york.ac.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>It's called "who else uses un*x so doesn't worry about problems like this?"
>>
>>Gary (-;
>
>Er, maybe you are too young to remember Robert Morris' Internet Worm.
>It brought the Internet down in 1988 and it was unix based. Given a
>similar number of users and installation as Windows, unix would
>susceptible to "problems like this".
>
The fingerd demon security hole that Mr Morris' worm exploted has
been fixed, in fact the patched new version of fingerd was available
months before the worm was lanched but very few system administrators
upgraded. MORAL- whatever OS you use always install all new security
patches ( if possible ).
However Unix is still susceptable to intrusion attack as new "exploits"
are always being dicovered.
The difference is that the Unix vendors first defence is to fix the
source code to REMOVE the hole the exploit uses, where as the windows/NT
vendors
1) ignore the problem for as long as possible
2) then when do create a patch a lot of times all it does is display
a warning dialog to the users ( with a default of Yes - ignore
warning )
3) which then most users promply ignore.
Simply put :-
In Unix most of the security is the responsibility of the programmers
and system administators;
In Windows ( and to a lesser extent NT and Win2k ) most of the security
is the responsibility of the antivirus industry and the users.
Most of this is covered in this speech
http://www.technetcast.com/tnc_play_stream.html?stream_id=354
and is definitely worth a listen, no matter what operating
system you use.
David Mohring - "... It's the cult of functionality ... "
Randy Abrams
"PaX [SlaM]" <P...@SlaM-VT.org.uk> wrote in message
news:8p38n0$jm6$1...@gxsn.com...
Actually in the case of coldape it had nothing to do with pride or a fall.
It was a simple case of an impotent script kiddie who couldn't attack nick
to his face so he attacked the rest of the world. The old "piss me off and
I'll take hostages" anti-free-speech tactic of some members of the Vx.
The famous Morris Internet worm would have been a fine example of a person
not understanding Unix is vulnerable to replicating code.
Regards,
Randy
Darren
>> Pride usuallly arrives just before a fall ..or in the case of
>> ColdApe....half a ton of f0rking email=]
>
>Actually in the case of coldape it had nothing to do with pride or a fall.
>It was a simple case of an impotent script kiddie who couldn't attack nick
>to his face so he attacked the rest of the world.
Sorry to barge in on this thread, but dare I ask how you know that the
said script kiddie is impotent, and that it's not someone who has
attacked, or rather a better word, confronted Nick to his face?
> The old "piss me off and
>I'll take hostages" anti-free-speech tactic of some members of the Vx.
>
Hmm, I always thought is was a case of everyone being a hostage anyway
and just a matter of time before they were shot.
Peace,
Darren
Moccasin beehive, I won!
PaX [SlaM]
fall.
It was a simple case of an impotent script kiddie who couldn't attack nick
to his face so he attacked the rest of the world. The old "piss me off and
I'll take hostages" anti-free-speech tactic of some members of the
Vx.<<<<<<<<
Naa just kidding Randy too late at nite to get any serious anaswers from
me=] Fitzy can be fun..=] at least he has the guts to speak his mind unlike
one particular self important troll ..
best wishes Dalt
Randy Abrams
"Darren" <working.a...@ultimatechaos.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:y5UPTbA3...@ultimatechaos.demon.co.uk...
> Randy Abrams once graced us wif the following:
> >"PaX [SlaM]" <P...@SlaM-VT.org.uk> wrote in message
> >news:8p38n0$jm6$1...@gxsn.com...
>
> >> Pride usuallly arrives just before a fall ..or in the case of
> >> ColdApe....half a ton of f0rking email=]
> >
> >Actually in the case of coldape it had nothing to do with pride or a
fall.
> >It was a simple case of an impotent script kiddie who couldn't attack
nick
> >to his face so he attacked the rest of the world.
>
> Sorry to barge in on this thread, but dare I ask how you know that the
> said script kiddie is impotent, and that it's not someone who has
> attacked, or rather a better word, confronted Nick to his face?
This wasn't meant as a sexual implication. The script kiddie was impotent to
attack Nick directly.
> > The old "piss me off and
> >I'll take hostages" anti-free-speech tactic of some members of the Vx.
> >
> Hmm, I always thought is was a case of everyone being a hostage anyway
> and just a matter of time before they were shot.
Sometimes the gun jams :)
Regards,
Randy
Raid
says...
>
> "PaX [SlaM]" <P...@SlaM-VT.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:8p38n0$jm6$1...@gxsn.com...
> > >>>>>> It's called "who else uses un*x so doesn't worry about problems
> like
> > >> this?"<<<<<<<<<
> >
> > That a challenge Kibblles?
> > Pride usuallly arrives just before a fall ..or in the case of
> > ColdApe....half a ton of f0rking email=]
>
> Actually in the case of coldape it had nothing to do with pride or a fall.
> It was a simple case of an impotent script kiddie who couldn't attack nick
> to his face so he attacked the rest of the world. The old "piss me off and
> I'll take hostages" anti-free-speech tactic of some members of the Vx.
LoL. You know he was impotant how exactly? You of all people should know
words can sometimes land you in hot water. Nick chose to piss off someone
who apparently decided to return the favor. You attempt in vein to cloud
this by claiming the Vxer had no balls. I know many Vxers who would have
no problem meeting Nick face to face, and still telling him to get
fucked; And more then happy to back it up should Nicky Boy want some.
Your friend Nick is one fucked up fellow. he's a hypocritical whining
little roach.
> The famous Morris Internet worm would have been a fine example of a person
> not understanding Unix is vulnerable to replicating code.
Yes, and Microsoft is a fine example of people who don't understand
security. :)
--
Regards,
Raid
Http://www.coderz.net/Raid - ICQ: 85814120
Email: raid...@yahoo.com Phone: (310) 883-2304 Ext 620
Randy Abrams
"Raid" <No-reply available> wrote in message
news:MPG.142cc688f...@news.chartertn.net...
> In article <#Y0sosQHAHA.283@cpmsnbbsa07>, randyab...@hotmail.com
<snip>
> > Actually in the case of coldape it had nothing to do with pride or a
fall.
> > It was a simple case of an impotent script kiddie who couldn't attack
nick
> > to his face so he attacked the rest of the world. The old "piss me off
and
> > I'll take hostages" anti-free-speech tactic of some members of the Vx.
>
> LoL. You know he was impotant how exactly?
Is that a trick question? It's obvious if your vocabulary is expansive
enough to know that impotent is not used exclusively to describe a sexual
condition.
> You of all people should know words can sometimes land you in hot water.
Hmm, I do, but why me of all people?
> Nick chose to piss off someone who apparently decided to return the favor.
Hmmm, this is a twisted form of logic. Nick chooses to exercise his freedom
speech to say what he wants. A virus writer decides that he hates freedom of
speech and will attack everyone in the world, except Nick (the common Vx
terrorist syndrome) by releasing a virus that provides Nick with material to
use in a presentation that gets Nick into a $1300 conference with a
$175/night hotel room for free! And this is returning the favor? Anyone here
who wouldn't love to have Nicks enemies?
>You attempt in vein to cloud this by claiming the Vxer had no balls.
No clouds at all. The Vxer obviously had no balls and that's why it
anonymously chose to attack everyone but Nick.
> I know many Vxers who would have no problem meeting Nick face to face, and
still telling him to get
> fucked; And more then happy to back it up should Nicky Boy want some.
That's entirely different than the wimp who spreads a virus to infect
everyone but the person they fear to face.
> Your friend Nick is one fucked up fellow. he's a hypocritical whining
little roach.
Hmm, I just spent a day helping a non-profit agency that assists victims of
domestic violence. I cleaned up dozens of files infected because careless
Vx'ers can't keep control of their code. Some of your little Vx buddies
attacks organizations that fight domestic violence and you call Nick "fucked
up"? You appear to lack the skills to assess "fucked up".
> > The famous Morris Internet worm would have been a fine example of a
person
> > not understanding Unix is vulnerable to replicating code.
>
> Yes, and Microsoft is a fine example of people who don't understand
security. :)
http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2612067,00.html
I guess security isn't you forte :)
Regards,
Randy
Raid
says...
> Is that a trick question? It's obvious if your vocabulary is expansive
> enough to know that impotent is not used exclusively to describe a sexual
> condition.
Correct, It's not. But that was the intention of your inuendo comment.
Nice *attempted* save, Randy...
> Hmmm, this is a twisted form of logic. Nick chooses to exercise his freedom
> speech to say what he wants. A virus writer decides that he hates freedom of
> speech and will attack everyone in the world, except Nick (the common Vx
> terrorist syndrome) by releasing a virus that provides Nick with material to
> use in a presentation that gets Nick into a $1300 conference with a
> $175/night hotel room for free! And this is returning the favor? Anyone here
> who wouldn't love to have Nicks enemies?
The virus author also exercised his freedom of speech, by sending many
love letters to Nicks own email address. Freedom of speech is very
important. The virus writers I know are all for freedom of speech, But
also understand the consequences of said freedoms. Nick didn't. :) One
does not badmouth another and expect nothing in return for it. Either
face to face or online. This is very simple math here Randy. Just because
we can't see one another doesn't give us the right to attack one another.
People are all two quick to forget this online.
I still do not understand why you bother insulting us, or defending
people who do. When you are intelligent enough to know it will not have
the "gee, maybe I should stop coding viruses" effect; Unless that's your
intention in the first place... Perhaps to come across to the loving
blind public that your against us by bashing on us in usenet.
> No clouds at all. The Vxer obviously had no balls and that's why it
> anonymously chose to attack everyone but Nick.
And by saying so and so has no nuts, this will somehow magically convince
him to stop writing/releasing viruses? Don't be so niave.
> That's entirely different than the wimp who spreads a virus to infect
> everyone but the person they fear to face.
I don't fear nick or any of the other posters here for a second. I fear
no one, and give a fuck about no-one. I have no problem meeting Nick face
to face if he wants. And if he'd like to badmouth me in person, I'll be
happy to close his mouth for him too. Badmouthing and petty names do not
serve your public image of wanting virus writers to stop. It only fuels
the fire.
> Hmm, I just spent a day helping a non-profit agency that assists victims of
> domestic violence. I cleaned up dozens of files infected because careless
> Vx'ers can't keep control of their code. Some of your little Vx buddies
> attacks organizations that fight domestic violence and you call Nick "fucked
> up"? You appear to lack the skills to assess "fucked up".
Guess what Randy? I spent ALL of last weekend helping a non-profit agency
remove the Kakworm virus from their computers. The organization wasn't
attacked on purpose by the author; That just happens to be the way
viruses are. Regardless, You don't see me whining about my ruined (shrug)
weekend do you? In the computer field, things do happen; Get used to it
or find other employment. But for God sakes, don't piss and moan. It's
unbecoming.
> http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2612067,00.html
>
> I guess security isn't you forte :)
Should I be impressed Randy? The first Microsoft based OS that's not
totally insecure; Only because it wouldn't allow any machine to try?
That's real impressive. Pity you couldn't do it before. But to be honest,
if you can block all "non-verified" sites from entering a machine; Your
pretty much safe from the outside world. That doesn't mean your operating
system otherwise could hold upto an attack.
PaX [SlaM]
As it happens Randy it is and has been for many years.I've seen and assessed
many degrees of threat from various sources and believe me ...Microsoft may
well be top of the software market but their security plain and simple
sucks.
A piece of computer software that can be easily exploited by what amounts to
no more than kids in some cases would leave me very worried about security.
The antivirus industry had an excellent chance to get a real insight into
the world of the virus writer and their methodolgy with Stormies departure
and open offer of help.Why don't the companies employ such people as his
abilities and programming experience would be of great benefit to people
trying to understand us,hummm whats that they say"We want to stop you not
understand you".Well to stop anything you must at least be able to
understand it.
Why don't microsoft use people like him??
regards Dalt
ps:Yup ima tired and probably rambling again=]
Art Kopp
wrote:
>The antivirus industry had an excellent chance to get a real insight into
>the world of the virus writer and their methodolgy with Stormies departure
>and open offer of help.Why don't the companies employ such people as his
>abilities and programming experience would be of great benefit
Several reasons, I would imagine. First, the implication that there
are some valuable secrets known to only vxers strikes me as laughable
BS from a vxer. Second, employers generally seek to hire honest and
straight people who have integrity, not those who display tendencies
toward immoral and/or criminal behaviour. Third, the idea that
programming malware is something that would gain any respect for
technical abilities among knowledgeable employers is ludicrous. It
would have the opposite effect.
Art
sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> The antivirus industry had an excellent chance to get a real insight
> into the world of the virus writer and their methodolgy with
> Stormies departure
Yes, and he turned up to the VB conference in San Francisco and gave a
little talk. And very interesting it was too.
> and open offer of help.
That's the bit which is a bit more difficult to swallow. What was
StormBringer/Michael Ellison offering the anti-virus companies that they
couldn't already do?
The skillset required to write good anti-virus software is very very
different from that required to write viruses. So, just because he has
written viruses in the past does not make him attractive to anti-virus
companies as a potential employee.
In fact it's a big disadvantage.
Consider:
1) PR. The anti-virus industry is competitive and if the ABC anti-virus
company found out that the XYZ anti-virus company was hiring virus authors
you can be sure that ABC will issue a press release denouncing it.
Furthermore, it will only feed the conspiracy theories of those customers
who half-jokingly suggest anti-virus companies are the guys who write the
viruses.
2) Trust. Virus authors whose creations have infected innocent users'
systems have already shown that they have not properly considered the
ethical implications of their actions. Why would an anti-virus company
want to employ someone ethically immature?
The fact is that there are lots of perfectly talented programmers out
there who do not bring with them these kind of problems (because of their
involvement in virus writing and distribution) and so are naturally going
to be more likely to be employed by AV companies.
> Why don't the companies employ such people as his abilities and
> programming experience would be of great benefit to people trying
> to understand us,hummm whats that they say "We want to stop you
> not understand you". Well to stop anything you must at least be
> able to understand it.
And indeed you'll find anti-virus companies are full of experienced staff
who understand viruses very very well, and know how to stop them.
> Why don't microsoft use people like him??
Huh? What would Microsoft use him for?
PaX [SlaM]
are some valuable secrets known to only vxers strikes me as laughable
BS from a vxer. <<<<<<<<<
Ok so none of us are particularly smart...thats why we get infected with
every free porn password mail that comes along..;)
>>>>Second, employers generally seek to hire honest and
straight people who have integrity, not those who display tendencies
toward immoral and/or criminal behaviour. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You suggest that Stormys actions were criminal? why no big line of FEDS at
Vb conference waiting to arrest him?
Being open Art if you had any idea what some of us do for jobs your ideas of
ethical and immoral may well go straight out of the window.
>>>>Third, the idea that
programming malware is something that would gain any respect for
technical abilities among knowledgeable employers is ludicrous. It
would have the opposite effect.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Why would you think that virus writers only create malware?
regards Dalt
PaX [SlaM]
who understand viruses very very well, and know how to stop them. <<<<<<<<
All your other points seem valid and I agree with them,the above point
though was not about understanding Viruses more the people that create
them..As the AV industry always try to say they dont want viruses to exist
so why not use other methods to stop them such as understanding the ethics
or reasons behind their creators?
Ive read Sara Gordons work in depth and she does have a very good
insight...but even so there are few others that have tried.(Well if you want
to include inspector cluless thats up to you ;))
the "know how to stop them"??
heh well Graham thats why people still get infected because the AV industry
can be arrogant to the extreme sometimes.I think it was Fred Cohen who said
in an interview "There appears to be a limit to what effort people will put
into creating destructive programs"...If the current trend of Global
infectors is only a small percentage iof what is possible then I personally
think the AVers need to try a little harder and maybe stop hyping their
claims.(Admittedly Sophos are one of the best for the no bullshit approach)
and concentrate on protecting the valuable customers (something i believe
Sophos already does;)).
best wishes Dalt
Randy Abrams
"Raid" <No-reply available> wrote in message
> In article <#2E6EHcIAHA.249@cpmsnbbsa09>, randyab...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
> > Is that a trick question? It's obvious if your vocabulary is expansive
> > enough to know that impotent is not used exclusively to describe a
sexual
> > condition.
>
> Correct, It's not. But that was the intention of your inuendo comment.
> Nice *attempted* save, Randy...
No need to save anything, no attempt made, and no, you're not good at
assessing motives. If I was attempting to attack his sexuality I'd have been
much more direct, rather I accurately assessed his displayed attack skills.
> > Hmmm, this is a twisted form of logic. Nick chooses to exercise his
freedom
> > speech to say what he wants. A virus writer decides that he hates
freedom of
> > speech and will attack everyone in the world, except Nick (the common Vx
> > terrorist syndrome) by releasing a virus that provides Nick with
material to
> > use in a presentation that gets Nick into a $1300 conference with a
> > $175/night hotel room for free! And this is returning the favor? Anyone
here
> > who wouldn't love to have Nicks enemies?
>
> The virus author also exercised his freedom of speech, by sending many
> love letters to Nicks own email address. Freedom of speech is very
> important.
then you should learn the difference between freedom of speech nd attempts
to harass. Sounds like your Vx buddy is just a self-glorified spammer.
> The virus writers I know are all for freedom of speech, But
If they were then they wouldn't abuse it. Truthfully Raid, the Vxers you
know don't give a damn about freedom of speech, if they did they wouldn't
abuse it by releasing viruses.
> also understand the consequences of said freedoms. Nick didn't. :) One
> does not badmouth another and expect nothing in return for it. Either
Americans who value freedom of speech understand that physical attacks
against words are anti-freedom of speech.
> face to face or online. This is very simple math here Randy. Just because
> we can't see one another doesn't give us the right to attack one another.
Vx could learn a lesson from that. what you really meant, of course, was
that it's ok for you to invade people's computers, but it's not ok for
others to verbally attack you for it.
> People are all two quick to forget this online.
Or when writing viruses.
<snip>
> happy to close his mouth for him too. Badmouthing and petty names do not
> serve your public image of wanting virus writers to stop. It only fuels
the fire.
Yeah sure. If we all just didn't cal them names they wouldn't write viruses.
Get real.
> > Hmm, I just spent a day helping a non-profit agency that assists victims
of
> > domestic violence. I cleaned up dozens of files infected because
careless
> > Vx'ers can't keep control of their code. Some of your little Vx buddies
> > attacks organizations that fight domestic violence and you call Nick
"fucked
> > up"? You appear to lack the skills to assess "fucked up".
>
> Guess what Randy? I spent ALL of last weekend helping a non-profit agency
> remove the Kakworm virus from their computers. The organization wasn't
> attacked on purpose by the author;
The author was certainly negligent with his code if he didn't mean to attack
them. Of course he meant to attack them. No one spreads a virus without
knowing it is an attack on the world. He clearly meant to attack them, and
everyone else, as all virus writers who deliberately release their code do.
> That just happens to be the way viruses are. Regardless, You don't see me
whining about my ruined (shrug)
> weekend do you?
No, you're too busy whining that Nick insulted you.
> In the computer field, things do happen; Get used to it
> or find other employment. But for God sakes, don't piss and moan. It's
> unbecoming.
If you don't like it, there are other newsgroups...get used to it.
> > http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2612067,00.html
> >
> > I guess security isn't you forte :)
>
> Should I be impressed Randy? The first Microsoft based OS that's not
> totally insecure; Only because it wouldn't allow any machine to try?
> That's real impressive. Pity you couldn't do it before. But to be honest,
> if you can block all "non-verified" sites from entering a machine; Your
> pretty much safe from the outside world. That doesn't mean your operating
> system otherwise could hold upto an attack.
NT 3.51 was the first with real security. NT 4.0 followed. 2000 is out now
and also has security. These OS's are no less secure than any *nix, you have
to configure security in all of them.
Regards,
Randy
Patricia A. Shaffer
>In article <8q68f4$d9s$1...@gxsn.com>, P...@SlaM-VT.org.uk (PaX [SlaM]) wrote:
>
>> The antivirus industry had an excellent chance to get a real insight
>> into the world of the virus writer and their methodolgy with
>> Stormies departure
>
>Yes, and he turned up to the VB conference in San Francisco and gave a
>little talk. And very interesting it was too.
>
>> and open offer of help.
>
>That's the bit which is a bit more difficult to swallow. What was
>StormBringer/Michael Ellison offering the anti-virus companies that they
>couldn't already do?
I can think of one thing ... it would show vxers that there is an
opportunity for legitimate expression of their talents. As it is now,
y'all don't know who half of the vxers really are anyway, so you've no
way of assuring that your AV staff is clean and pure in the first place.
>The skillset required to write good anti-virus software is very very
>different from that required to write viruses. So, just because he has
>written viruses in the past does not make him attractive to anti-virus
>companies as a potential employee.
>
>In fact it's a big disadvantage.
>
>Consider:
>
>1) PR. The anti-virus industry is competitive and if the ABC anti-virus
>company found out that the XYZ anti-virus company was hiring virus authors
>you can be sure that ABC will issue a press release denouncing it.
But if you are up front about it in the first place, there would be no
surprises to be sprung.
>Furthermore, it will only feed the conspiracy theories of those customers
>who half-jokingly suggest anti-virus companies are the guys who write the
>viruses.
It could just as easily deter the conspiracy theories, and provide a
good example for young wannabe vx heroes. To have someone they respect
say that harming other folks' data is wrong gives the kids a chance to
see the other side.
>2) Trust. Virus authors whose creations have infected innocent users'
>systems have already shown that they have not properly considered the
>ethical implications of their actions. Why would an anti-virus company
>want to employ someone ethically immature?
How about because immaturity is usually cured by time? What one may do
as a young misguided teen-ager ought not to haunt one for the rest of
one's life. If someone apologizes and tries to make amends for any
damage, that ought to be enough to warrant giving him/her a chance to
earn a living. If you are going to hold it against him/her forever,
then what's the use of reforming in the first place.
>The fact is that there are lots of perfectly talented programmers out
>there who do not bring with them these kind of problems (because of their
>involvement in virus writing and distribution) and so are naturally going
>to be more likely to be employed by AV companies.
But how do you know for sure that your latest brightest hiree isn't the
author of the current #1 problem in the wild?
>> Why don't the companies employ such people as his abilities and
>> programming experience would be of great benefit to people trying
>> to understand us,hummm whats that they say "We want to stop you
>> not understand you". Well to stop anything you must at least be
>> able to understand it.
>
>And indeed you'll find anti-virus companies are full of experienced staff
>who understand viruses very very well, and know how to stop them.
And how many of them got a fair amount of their experience
surreptitiously under a nym in the back channels and chatrooms?
>> Why don't microsoft use people like him??
>
>Huh? What would Microsoft use him for?
Huh? But I thought they did ... GUIDs, spyware, and all those things
that screw up non-MS applications ... ;^>
--
Patricia
Proud Citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia
"Anti-spammers are the immune system of the Internet." (CDR M. Dobson)
"The spam wars are about rendering email useless for unsolicited
advertising before unsolicited advertising renders email useless
for communication."(Walter Dnes/Jeff Wynn) Opt-out is cop-out! <http://www.cauce.org>
Randy Abrams
<snip>
> in an interview "There appears to be a limit to what effort people will
put
> into creating destructive programs"...If the current trend of Global
Yeah and there's limit to how much damage a nuclear weapon will do too, but
it doesn't mean it's trivial :)
Regards,
Randy
Brien Barlev
<ra...@swva.net> wrote:
>On 19 Sep 2000 14:27:07 GMT, sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>Furthermore, it will only feed the conspiracy theories of those customers
>>who half-jokingly suggest anti-virus companies are the guys who write the
>>viruses.
>
>It could just as easily deter the conspiracy theories, and provide a
>good example for young wannabe vx heroes. To have someone they respect
>say that harming other folks' data is wrong gives the kids a chance to
>see the other side.
If I understand Sarah's work correctly, in the full goodness of time
the ethics/eduction initiative will produce a critical mass of such VX
role models. Mature VXers who do their business but in an acceptable
and honourable way, avoiding the deployment of ItWers that run amok
destroying the time and data of innocent victims.
But in the meantime we grope with stop gap measures and the antics of
clowns, like Inspector Clueless... ;o(
>>2) Trust. Virus authors whose creations have infected innocent users'
>>systems have already shown that they have not properly considered the
>>ethical implications of their actions. Why would an anti-virus company
>>want to employ someone ethically immature?
>
>How about because immaturity is usually cured by time? What one may do
>as a young misguided teen-ager ought not to haunt one for the rest of
>one's life.
Very well said.
>If someone apologizes and tries to make amends for any
>damage, that ought to be enough to warrant giving him/her a chance to
>earn a living. If you are going to hold it against him/her forever,
>then what's the use of reforming in the first place.
Hence why I've always strongly suggested to Mr Vic - to restart
afresh, apologising for his wrongs comes first. Only then, trying to
rebuild his life is meaningful with a good chance of success.
Regards,
Brien
Raid
says...
> No need to save anything, no attempt made, and no, you're not good at
> assessing motives. If I was attempting to attack his sexuality I'd have been
> much more direct, rather I accurately assessed his displayed attack skills.
Uhh. Yea.. Okie :)
> then you should learn the difference between freedom of speech nd attempts
> to harass. Sounds like your Vx buddy is just a self-glorified spammer.
No more so then Symantec, Microsoft, Trend, hotmail, AOL... hrm, the list
goes on and on.
> If they were then they wouldn't abuse it. Truthfully Raid, the Vxers you
> know don't give a damn about freedom of speech, if they did they wouldn't
> abuse it by releasing viruses.
It's not abusing freedom of speech to release software; And that's
exactly what a virus is. Some people actually do want access to them,
it's abuse of freedom of speech to deny it to them.
> Americans who value freedom of speech understand that physical attacks
> against words are anti-freedom of speech.
Your stretching. Physical attacks can come in many ways and for many
reasons. and I'm sure you know that.
> Vx could learn a lesson from that. what you really meant, of course, was
> that it's ok for you to invade people's computers, but it's not ok for
> others to verbally attack you for it.
if only you really could read minds randy. Nice try. People are welcome
to verbally attack all they like; So long as they realize the goal of
stopping the evil virus writer will not be achieved this way. Depending
on the comments made, you might even give a new idea for a virus to
somebody. One should choose his/her words wisely, for they will come back
to haunt you.
> Yeah sure. If we all just didn't cal them names they wouldn't write viruses.
> Get real.
Of course not, and I didn't say that either. However, name calling as it
happens here certainly isn't helping to solve the problem in any way
shape or form. Nick's comments on the broadcast he did caused the
creation of 3 unique viruses that otherwise wouldn't have been developed.
It's the ignition switch if you will Randy...
> The author was certainly negligent with his code if he didn't mean to attack
> them. Of course he meant to attack them. No one spreads a virus without
> knowing it is an attack on the world. He clearly meant to attack them, and
> everyone else, as all virus writers who deliberately release their code do.
No Randy.. As you well know, Viruses spread. You've said it yourself;
Even Virus authors once they release the virus have no control over where
it goes. Are you now retracting that statement? As a virus writer myself,
I find it amusing that you would indirectly claim I attacked whatever
Toadie hit on purpose. I had no particular targets in mind. It's not as
if we can just login to any machine we damn well please and launch a
virus to a specified target Randy.. And you fucking know this.
> No, you're too busy whining that Nick insulted you.
LOL! I don't care about Nick, or you Randy. I have no reason to whine
about being insulted by one prick who used to work at virus bulletin, and
another prick who proudly works for Microshit.
> If you don't like it, there are other newsgroups...get used to it.
Whatsa matta Randy? Couldn't come up with a good come back? :)
> NT 3.51 was the first with real security. NT 4.0 followed. 2000 is out now
> and also has security. These OS's are no less secure than any *nix, you have
> to configure security in all of them.
NTFS? Yes, nice n secure; If used properly, and even then, far from
perfect. You can read/write to ntfs from win95 if you want. (Yes, hehe, I
have the lovely app that patches it for you). Unix systems are more
secure for the simple fact, they were created with security in mind.
Security is an afterthought where Microsoft is concerned.
kurt wismer
> In article <#2E6EHcIAHA.249@cpmsnbbsa09>, randyab...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
> > Is that a trick question? It's obvious if your vocabulary is expansive
> > enough to know that impotent is not used exclusively to describe a sexual
> > condition.
>
> Correct, It's not. But that was the intention of your inuendo comment.
> Nice *attempted* save, Randy...
reading minds again raid? nothing in the context of the original statement
said that it had to be a sexual reference, and the lack of
compounding sexual references strongly suggests that it was not one... if
you must read between the line, make sure you're on the right page...
you cannot simply say that because it is *a* meaning that it must have
been *the* meaning... there is no contextual support for your
assertion... ergo, no innuendo, and nothing to save...
kurt wismer
> >>>>I guess security isn't you forte :)<<<<<<<<<
>
>
> As it happens Randy it is and has been for many years.I've seen and assessed
> many degrees of threat from various sources and believe me ...Microsoft may
> well be top of the software market but their security plain and simple
> sucks.
> A piece of computer software that can be easily exploited by what amounts to
> no more than kids in some cases would leave me very worried about security.
> The antivirus industry had an excellent chance to get a real insight into
> the world of the virus writer and their methodolgy with Stormies departure
> and open offer of help.Why don't the companies employ such people as his
> abilities and programming experience would be of great benefit to people
> trying to understand us,
the av companies don't because they don't want send the message that it
'pays' to be a virus writer....
other types of companies do hire such people however, stormbringer was
gainfully employed last i heard...
> hummm whats that they say"We want to stop you not
> understand you".Well to stop anything you must at least be able to
> understand it.
pot, kettle, black... a person who want's to understand something listens
for answers to his questions rather than answering them himself and in so
doing putting words in the mouths of others...
> Why don't microsoft use people like him??
are you certain they don't?
kurt wismer
> >>>And indeed you'll find anti-virus companies are full of experienced staff
> who understand viruses very very well, and know how to stop them. <<<<<<<<
>
>
> All your other points seem valid and I agree with them,the above point
> though was not about understanding Viruses more the people that create
> them..
anti-virus *companies* are in the business of selling software, not saving
souls... it's not really their job to understand virus writers, it doesn't
help them make a better product etc...
they leave the windmill tilting to private individuals...
> As the AV industry always try to say they dont want viruses to exist
> so why not use other methods to stop them such as understanding the ethics
> or reasons behind their creators?
you could kill each and every current virus writer along with each and
every new virus writer the moment they think about writing a virus for the
first time and that still wouldn't stop viruses from existing... viruses
have already been made and nothing is going to make them magically
disappear....
saying one wished viruses didn't exist is like saying one wished the atom
had never been split.. it's an idle wish...
[snip]
> heh well Graham thats why people still get infected because the AV
>industry
> can be arrogant to the extreme sometimes.
really? is that the result of indepth study of infected users or did you
just pull that out of somewhere?
> I think it was Fred Cohen who said
> in an interview "There appears to be a limit to what effort people will put
> into creating destructive programs"...If the current trend of Global
> infectors is only a small percentage iof what is possible then I personally
> think the AVers need to try a little harder and maybe stop hyping their
> claims.
somehow i don't think the 'solution' is quite so simple...
kurt wismer
[snip]
> Yeah and there's limit to how much damage a nuclear weapon will do too, but
> it doesn't mean it's trivial :)
depends on the type... atom bomb sure, hydrogen bomb no (or so i
understood)... just add (heavy) water to increase yield... (part of the
contraversy over teller's baby was the fact that the only reason to
generate explosions that large was for non-tactical targets)
sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> >>>And indeed you'll find anti-virus companies are full
> >>>of experienced staff who understand viruses very very well,
> >>>and know how to stop them.
>
> All your other points seem valid and I agree with them,the
> above point though was not about understanding Viruses more
> the people that create them..
Yes, I realise that. You don't seem to have understood that anti-virus
companies aim to protect companies from viruses, not virus writers.
> As the AV industry always try to say they dont want viruses to
> exist so why not use other methods to stop them such as
> understanding the ethics or reasons behind their creators?
Well, we're participating up here aren't we? I don't see how employing a
virus writer is supposed to make you understand better a virus writer's
reasoning.
> Ive read Sara Gordons work in depth and she does have a very good
> insight...but even so there are few others that have tried.(Well
> if you want to include inspector cluless thats up to you ;))
>
> the "know how to stop them"??
>
> heh well Graham thats why people still get infected because the AV
> industry can be arrogant to the extreme sometimes.
I didn't just say anti-virus companies only recommend people use
anti-virus software to stop viruses. I spend a great deal of my time
advising companies and individuals on what they can to do to reduce the
threat from viruses besides running anti-virus software. And you'll find
many articles on our website discussing just that.
In fact, the talk I am giving with Carole Theriault at VB2000 next week
touches on how businesses can better deal with the virus threat in ways
which don't involve giving anti-virus companies money.
sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Patricia A. Shaffer) wrote:
> I can think of one thing ... it would show vxers that there
> is an opportunity for legitimate expression of their talents.
As someone who works in anti-virus I would rather not suggest that writing
viruses is a legitimate way into the industry. I think that would be a
bad message to send out to people considering writing viruses.
There are lots of other legitimate ways for virus writers to express their
talents. Don't see why they have to write anti-virus software. Why don't
virus writers write games or become dot com millionaires?
> As it is now, y'all don't know who half of the vxers really
> are anyway, so you've no way of assuring that your AV staff
> is clean and pure in the first place.
We have a test at Sophos we apply to incoming staff. I'm afraid it's
company confidential so I can't tell you what it is up here - but it does
ensure no virus writers get through the front door.
> >1) PR. The anti-virus industry is competitive and if the
> >ABC anti-virus company found out that the XYZ anti-virus
> >company was hiring virus authors you can be sure that ABC
> >will issue a press release denouncing it.
>
> But if you are up front about it in the first place, there
> would be no surprises to be sprung.
You think that would stop XYZ? And stop the media (who would be suitably
outraged on behalf of their readership)? And what about the customers who
think it sucks that XYZ are sending out a message to virus writers that
you might get a job protecting the systems they worked so hard to damage?
> >Furthermore, it will only feed the conspiracy theories of those
> >customers who half-jokingly suggest anti-virus companies are
> >the guys who write the viruses.
>
> It could just as easily deter the conspiracy theories, and provide
> a good example for young wannabe vx heroes. To have someone
> they respect say that harming other folks' data is wrong gives
> the kids a chance to see the other side.
Absolutely. And people like Mike Ellison did that at the VB conference.
But I don't see why the anti-virus companies should be the ones to employ
former virus writers. Former virus writers are perfectly capable of
saying damaging other peoples' data is wrong without us employing them.
> >2) Trust. Virus authors whose creations have infected innocent
> >users' systems have already shown that they have not properly
> >considered the ethical implications of their actions. Why would
> >an anti-virus company want to employ someone ethically immature?
>
> How about because immaturity is usually cured by time? What one
> may do as a young misguided teen-ager ought not to haunt one for
> the rest of one's life. If someone apologizes and tries to make
> amends for any damage, that ought to be enough to warrant giving
> him/her a chance to earn a living. If you are going to hold it
> against him/her forever, then what's the use of reforming in
> the first place.
I agree with that. I don't have a problem with people saying "Sorry" and
getting on with their lives.
However, I don't understand why people think virus writers can only be
employed by anti-virus companies. If virus writers want to put something
back into the community there are plenty of other jobs they can do. They
can even try and write their own anti-virus if they want.. Good luck to
them. I wonder who would buy it?
Patricia A. Shaffer
>In article <ue1ylilIAHA.327@cpmsnbbsa09>, randyab...@hotmail.com
>says...
>
>> No need to save anything, no attempt made, and no, you're not good at
>> assessing motives. If I was attempting to attack his sexuality I'd have been
>> much more direct, rather I accurately assessed his displayed attack skills.
>
>Uhh. Yea.. Okie :)
>
>> then you should learn the difference between freedom of speech nd attempts
>> to harass. Sounds like your Vx buddy is just a self-glorified spammer.
>
>No more so then Symantec, Microsoft, Trend, hotmail, AOL... hrm, the list
>goes on and on.
>
>> If they were then they wouldn't abuse it. Truthfully Raid, the Vxers you
>> know don't give a damn about freedom of speech, if they did they wouldn't
>> abuse it by releasing viruses.
>
>It's not abusing freedom of speech to release software; And that's
>exactly what a virus is. Some people actually do want access to them,
>it's abuse of freedom of speech to deny it to them.
A virus may be a software program, but it is not the kind of program
anyone wants running loose on their computers. If anyone wants a virus,
there are ways of obtaining it without allowing it to get into the wild.
Stifling the spread of a virus has nothing to to with freedom of speech,
as the virus is not a living thing and has no rights at all. The free
speech rights of the author have many other *legitimate* outlets for
expression. Tresspassing upon and disrupting or destroying the property
of others is NOT a legitimate expression of free speech, but rather, it
is a criminal deed.
Rights come with responsibilities, Raid ... your rights may not infringe
upon the rights of others, and you have the responsibility to see to it
that your expression of your rights does not do harm to others. Feel
free to write all the viruses you want, express your speech to the
fullest on your *own* machines ... but your right to freedom of
expression ends where others' freedom to the sole and uninhibited
enjoyment of their personal property begins. The minute you allow a
virus out of your personal control, that is the minute you shoulder full
responsibility for all the damage it wreaks forevermore.
Patricia A. Shaffer
>In article <6s8fsscig54736f1i...@4ax.com>, ra...@swva.net
>(Patricia A. Shaffer) wrote:
>
>> I can think of one thing ... it would show vxers that there
>> is an opportunity for legitimate expression of their talents.
>
>As someone who works in anti-virus I would rather not suggest that writing
>viruses is a legitimate way into the industry. I think that would be a
>bad message to send out to people considering writing viruses.
Are you saying that learning how to code self-replicating programs is a
waste of time? That learning how to create something that can survive
and overcome barriers to that survival is useless. Hmmm ... seems to me
that it could give one insight into life itself. Isn't that the goal of
AI work? And you have to admit, there aren't many AI manuals written
for mass media. I think I would like to try to write a virus just to
see if I could still cram a little more experience into my wetware data
banks. <g>
>There are lots of other legitimate ways for virus writers to express their
>talents. Don't see why they have to write anti-virus software. Why don't
>virus writers write games or become dot com millionaires?
Why cubism? Why hip-hop? Why Rachmaninov?
>> As it is now, y'all don't know who half of the vxers really
>> are anyway, so you've no way of assuring that your AV staff
>> is clean and pure in the first place.
>
>We have a test at Sophos we apply to incoming staff. I'm afraid it's
>company confidential so I can't tell you what it is up here - but it does
>ensure no virus writers get through the front door.
LOL! Truth serum?
>> >1) PR. The anti-virus industry is competitive and if the
>> >ABC anti-virus company found out that the XYZ anti-virus
>> >company was hiring virus authors you can be sure that ABC
>> >will issue a press release denouncing it.
>>
>> But if you are up front about it in the first place, there
>> would be no surprises to be sprung.
>
>You think that would stop XYZ? And stop the media (who would be suitably
>outraged on behalf of their readership)? And what about the customers who
>think it sucks that XYZ are sending out a message to virus writers that
>you might get a job protecting the systems they worked so hard to damage?
It would be a solid first step in educating the public about the real
issues ... not the glamour-hype of demons and saviours, but the plain
old fact that malicious destruction of other's property is a publicly
indefensible crime that is not tolerated. That one can be responsibly
creative and still remain a citizen in good standing with society. That
is a fact, you know ... many vxers are living proof of it.
The AVx industry may want to appear to shield itself from invasion by
"tainted" employees, but I do not believe that is possible; trying to
maintain such a "holier-than-thou" aura is a waste of company resources,
and in plain fact, a challenge to your perceived opponents. I do not
think you can ever be 100% certain that you have no "secret vxers" on
your payroll.
I didn't say that virus writers could *only* be employed by anti-virus
companies; my point is that by saying that anti-virus companies are the
only ones who will NOT hire virus writers, you are publicly dissing a
vast amount of talent that you might just find useful, and furthermore,
you are setting yourselves up as the "opposition" needlessly. One of
these days, the ACLU might have to take you to court as discriminating
against honest and honorable virus-writers who have never released a
critter, never harmed anyone. Think about it ... no one is perfect. <g>
Lee Higdon
"Patricia A. Shaffer" <ra...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:eefhss4a21lsff1mo...@4ax.com...
<snip, snip>
> Stifling the spread of a virus has nothing to to with freedom of speech,
> as the virus is not a living thing and has no rights at all.
**** Nor was Tropic of Cancer, for that matter. And that was purported to
damage many a fine mind :-).
The free
> speech rights of the author have many other *legitimate* outlets for
> expression.
**** Must be careful about who decides what a legitimate outlet for
expression is. Certainly, I ain't the right guy to decide for you!
Tresspassing upon and disrupting or destroying the property
> of others is NOT a legitimate expression of free speech, but rather, it
> is a criminal deed.
**** Agree with you 100%. And IF...IF... the spread of viruses (proper pl?)
causes damage, then the responsible first unmoved mover ought to pay the
piper.
>
> Rights come with responsibilities, Raid ... your rights may not infringe
> upon the rights of others, and you have the responsibility to see to it
> that your expression of your rights does not do harm to others.
**** Well...in our concept of society, that's correct. Not that I disagree
with the concept.
Feel
> free to write all the viruses you want, express your speech to the
> fullest on your *own* machines ... but your right to freedom of
> expression ends where others' freedom to the sole and uninhibited
> enjoyment of their personal property begins. The minute you allow a
> virus out of your personal control, that is the minute you shoulder full
> responsibility for all the damage it wreaks forevermore.
>
**** Responsibility for "damage" is the operative phrase.
Art Kopp
<ra...@swva.net> wrote:
>Are you saying that learning how to code self-replicating programs is a
>waste of time? That learning how to create something that can survive
>and overcome barriers to that survival is useless. Hmmm ... seems to me
>that it could give one insight into life itself. Isn't that the goal of
>AI work? And you have to admit, there aren't many AI manuals written
>for mass media. I think I would like to try to write a virus just to
>see if I could still cram a little more experience into my wetware data
>banks. <g>
Patricia, I imagine those PhD types who do artificial life and AI work
are laughing their butts off at your naive comments here. C'mon now,
please quit this crap and stick with the moral arguments you are so
good at :) Computer malware is crapware. Period! Please don't
contribute to the egos and attempts at creating a mystique and genius
image that these clown vxers try to perpetrate. You are working
against yourself (and myself and others) here.
Art
PaX [SlaM]
understood)... just add (heavy) water to increase yield... (part of the
contraversy over teller's baby was the fact that the only reason to
generate explosions that large was for non-tactical targets)
<<<<<<
I've actually spoken with Edward Teller.....the most unassuming and geniune
man I have had the honour to speak with..
regards Dalt
PaX [SlaM]
touches on how businesses can better deal with the virus threat in ways
which don't involve giving anti-virus companies money.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
That makes you the exception instead of the rule Graham.
Dalt
PaX [SlaM]
their
talents. Don't see why they have to write anti-virus software. Why don't
virus writers write games or become dot com millionaires?<<<<<<<<<
What makes you think they don't?
>>>>We have a test at Sophos we apply to incoming staff. I'm afraid it's
company confidential so I can't tell you what it is up here - but it does
ensure no virus writers get through the front door.<<<<<<
Invalid.....The only way to know if your test works is to gaurantee that you
have no former/active VXers on the payroll.
Try this for size..Currently 2 KNOWN virus writers work for AV companies.NO
i'm not on a wind up or talking shit.
>>>>>>However, I don't understand why people think virus writers can only be
employed by anti-virus companies. If virus writers want to put something
back into the community there are plenty of other jobs they can do. They
can even try and write their own anti-virus if they want.. Good luck to
them. I wonder who would buy it?<<<<<<<<
Again from personel experience I can STATE that programs that have been
written by Vxers are currently in use with a number of organisations
including The US goverment and the UK security service.Of course the
agencies concerned aren't aware that Mr Blah Blah is/was a Virus Writer.So
if the goverment aren't sure then you expect me to believe that Sophos's
intake tests are fool proof??
So many times I have said if you knew what many of us actually do for real
time employment the shock would most likely be fatal..;)
regards Dalt/ PaX [SlaM]
PaX [SlaM]
Both Sodium Pentathol and the Polygraph can be beaten..=]
Dalt
PaX [SlaM]
contribute to the egos and attempts at creating a mystique and genius
image that these clown vxers try to perpetrate. You are working
against yourself (and myself and others) here.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
heh you dont have any real idea do you Art=]
who do you think some of the professors actually are?
Dalt
Art Kopp
wrote:
>>>>>>Computer malware is crapware. Period! Please don't
Crapware writers? Bwhahaha! I'll tell you one thing. After expending
my energies all day long on engineering the last thing I'd want to do
is waste my time that way ... moral issues aside. I really do think
most professional people have far better and more challenging things
to do.
Art
PaX [SlaM]
my energies all day long on engineering the last thing I'd want to do
is waste my time that way ... moral issues aside. I really do think
most professional people have far better and more challenging things
to do.
There is a difference between us...I know what many of my peers do for
jobs...you dont.
You don't believe the old stories about green hair and drug use do you?
regards Dalt
sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> >>>>We have a test at Sophos we apply to incoming staff.
> I'm afraid it's company confidential so I can't tell you
> what it is up here - but it does ensure no virus writers
> get through the front door.<<<<<<
>
> Invalid.....The only way to know if your test works is
> to gaurantee that you have no former/active VXers on the
> payroll.
Obviously my sense of humour didn't travel over the net.
> Try this for size..Currently 2 KNOWN virus writers work for
> AV companies.NO i'm not on a wind up or talking shit.
Come on, don't leave us in suspense... tell us more!
Art Kopp
wrote:
>>>>>Crapware writers? Bwhahaha! I'll tell you one thing. After expending
Aren't green hair and drugs 'in' among the losers nowadays? I know
writing 'wif' instead of 'with' is 'in'. What else?
Art
Brien Barlev
>In article <8qao1h$dd0$1...@gxsn.com>, P...@SlaM-VT.org.uk (PaX [SlaM]) wrote:
>Obviously my sense of humour didn't travel over the net.
But it did Graham... ;o)
Though obviously some did or could not tune into it. Much like my ex.
I used to have to explain the joke cartoons in the local newspaper for
example... ;o(
>> Try this for size..Currently 2 KNOWN virus writers work for
>> AV companies.NO i'm not on a wind up or talking shit.
>
>Come on, don't leave us in suspense... tell us more!
Nah, don't egg him on, da big bad black Angel. What a hoax! ;o)
Regards,
Inspector Clueless...
PaX [SlaM]
I'll kill any further requests along these lines barlev so dont bother
jumping on this either.
Sorry about that Graham but I didnt want the RAT catcher stuffing his nose
in,As to the above...we bo0th know full well that there is NO way I'm
prepared to give out anything like that degree of detail about any of my
friends/fellow Vxers / authors.
I guess this is one time you will have to accept it or reject it just on
face value.Like / Dislike me ...have you EVER known me to lie?
regards Dalt
PaX [SlaM]
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
???? So I use the IRC nick [Angel] is that such a crime?
what you babbling about now RAT catcher?
[Plonk!]
PaX / SlaM
PaX [SlaM]
oooooohh inside information!!! correct!! there are no current Virus writers
with green hair...hummm or is there?
Only Darren uses wif.................
loser? heh you have a mortgage?
regards Dalt
Inspector Clueless...
wrote:
>Sorry about that Graham but I didnt want the RAT catcher stuffing his nose
>in
Oh bugga, so ya can smell da BO from there... :o(
>As to the above...we bo0th know full well that there is NO way I'm
>prepared to give out anything like that degree of detail about any of my
>friends/fellow Vxers / authors.
A honourable Vxer! A fine candidate as a future Meta-Vxer? ;o)
>I guess this is one time you will have to accept it or reject it just on
>face value.Like / Dislike me ...have you EVER known me to lie?
Graham might, but for the rest of us - well? Here's a test PaX, do you
know how old you are? Nah, its not a trick question, while remembering
that ya not ageless mate... :o)
Regardless,
Inspector Clueless...
Raid
> >>>>There are lots of other legitimate ways for virus writers to express
> their
> talents. Don't see why they have to write anti-virus software. Why don't
> virus writers write games or become dot com millionaires?<<<<<<<<<
>
>
> What makes you think they don't?
Graham doesn't really know that much about us PaX, isn't it obvious? At
one time he was quoted as saying their are no female Vxers, this after
the fact Gigabyte was in the scene. LoL
> Invalid.....The only way to know if your test works is to gaurantee that you
> have no former/active VXers on the payroll.
> Try this for size..Currently 2 KNOWN virus writers work for AV companies.NO
> i'm not on a wind up or talking shit.
No, indeed your not talking shit. It's true. Hehehe
> Again from personel experience I can STATE that programs that have been
> written by Vxers are currently in use with a number of organisations
> including The US goverment and the UK security service.Of course the
> agencies concerned aren't aware that Mr Blah Blah is/was a Virus Writer.So
> if the goverment aren't sure then you expect me to believe that Sophos's
> intake tests are fool proof??
HAHAHAHA. I know uncle sam uses some of my legitimate software; and I
know several fortune 500 companies do as well.
> So many times I have said if you knew what many of us actually do for real
> time employment the shock would most likely be fatal..;)
Indeed. Take Spanska for example. One would never guess a virus writer
does what he does for a living. :)
Raid
> >>>>Crapware writers? Bwhahaha! I'll tell you one thing. After expending
> my energies all day long on engineering the last thing I'd want to do
> is waste my time that way ... moral issues aside. I really do think
> most professional people have far better and more challenging things
> to do.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
>
> There is a difference between us...I know what many of my peers do for
> jobs...you dont.
> You don't believe the old stories about green hair and drug use do you?
>
LoL. This is cruel. it's like having the newspaper a day early; So you
already know which horse won, then betting on it. :) Your guaranteed to
win. But er, in this case; Art has no real idea. I'm sure the avers would
shitthemselves if they knew I have security in some very high military
plants for computer related activities related to my job. I actually hold
valid security clearances. Muahahaha.
Art like most of the others not in the scene Pax, guesses about us most
of the time. And forms opinions based on viruses alone; Total disregard
for other activities we may do.
kurt wismer
> On 20 Sep 2000 09:29:46 GMT, sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
> >In article <6s8fsscig54736f1i...@4ax.com>, ra...@swva.net
> >(Patricia A. Shaffer) wrote:
> >
> >> I can think of one thing ... it would show vxers that there
> >> is an opportunity for legitimate expression of their talents.
> >
> >As someone who works in anti-virus I would rather not suggest that writing
> >viruses is a legitimate way into the industry. I think that would be a
> >bad message to send out to people considering writing viruses.
>
> Are you saying that learning how to code self-replicating programs is a
> waste of time?
his statement was about doing, not learning...
there is no legitimate reason to reward virus writers for writing
viruses - employing them because they were/are virus writers is such a
reward...
kurt wismer
> >>>>>depends on the type... atom bomb sure, hydrogen bomb no (or so i
> understood)... just add (heavy) water to increase yield... (part of the
> contraversy over teller's baby was the fact that the only reason to
> generate explosions that large was for non-tactical targets)
> <<<<<<
>
> I've actually spoken with Edward Teller.....the most unassuming and geniune
> man I have had the honour to speak with..
history books have a slightly different take on him and his relationship
with oppenheimer and the bomb project in general... first impressions can
be deceiving you know...
kurt wismer
really? how many vb conferences have you attended - somehow i can't see
them being so popular if "give us money and we'll solve your problems" is
the rule rather than the exception at such events...
Alex Shipp
>company confidential so I can't tell you what it is up here - but it does
>ensure no virus writers get through the front door.
This suggested the following to me.
If this test has detected a VXer in the past, then chances are that
the VXer has publicised the test to the scene...making it more likely
that the next VXer will get in.
On the other hand, if its never detected a VXer, how do you know it works!
That's not to say that the test hasn't weeded out lots of people who
are phsycologically (hey, I can't spell it, but you know what I mean!)
not the right people to work for Sophos anyway, so the test needn't be
without merit - I just wouldn't bet the farm on it stopping all VXers.
Alex
Lee Higdon
"Raid" <No-reply available> wrote in message
news:MPG.14331e562...@news.chartertn.net...
>
> Art like most of the others not in the scene Pax, guesses about us most
> of the time. And forms opinions based on viruses alone; Total disregard
> for other activities we may do.
Actually, you're probably more responsible for that than you might think.
Art (I assume) forms opinions about regulars based on what they write and
what they divulge about themselves. And be honest with yourself; there is a
personna you craft for yourself. So really, Art is looking at the reflection
of that personna. I certainly understand your need for anonymity, but then
you shouldn't expect others to be more perceptive than you allow them to be.
Even the carney who guesses your age and weight gets to look at you, first.
Inspector Clueless...
>But er, in this case; Art has no real idea. I'm sure the avers would
>shitthemselves if they knew I have security in some very high military
>plants for computer related activities related to my job. I actually hold
>valid security clearances. Muahahaha.
Should you sound so cocky here Raid, when (during a moment of careless
weakness?), you let slip about who you really are? But hey - its safe
with me. Just be a little more careful next time! OK?
>Art like most of the others not in the scene Pax, guesses about us most
>of the time. And forms opinions based on viruses alone; Total disregard
>for other activities we may do.
Vx's anonymity antics invites such speculation. Its all part of the
nature of this "game" that both sides "love" to play! The other stuff
is in comparison - everyday boredomsville... :o(
Regardless,
Inspector Clueless...
Inspector Clueless...
Clueless...) wrote:
>Should you sound so cocky here Raid, when (during a moment of careless
>weakness?), you let slip about who you really are? But hey - its safe
>with me. Just be a little more careful next time! OK?
To pre-empt any speculation here wrt Raid's true identity, don't ever
expect to get it from me, though I've noticed this morning some
attempts by whomever to break into my mailbox(s)... :o(
In the spirit of give and take, Raid has something of mine that should
never be made public. Raid very well understands this and I totally
rely upon his responsible integrity to honour this.
Regardless,
Inspector Clueless...
Raid
lhigd...@mindspring.com says...
> Actually, you're probably more responsible for that than you might think.
> Art (I assume) forms opinions about regulars based on what they write and
> what they divulge about themselves. And be honest with yourself; there is a
> personna you craft for yourself. So really, Art is looking at the reflection
> of that personna. I certainly understand your need for anonymity, but then
> you shouldn't expect others to be more perceptive than you allow them to be.
> Even the carney who guesses your age and weight gets to look at you, first.
I'm responsible for Arts opinions at virus writers? LoL, I think not.
He's had those opinions for years. He believes no ethical programmer
would ever develop such a thing. Ethics... pfft.
I am being honest with myself and everyone else here Lee, this is the
real me; Raid psuedonym aside.
Raid
says...
> Should you sound so cocky here Raid, when (during a moment of careless
> weakness?), you let slip about who you really are? But hey - its safe
> with me. Just be a little more careful next time! OK?
LOL. You've got nothing on my Barlev. You know how many military type
things are in this city alone? I refuse to be intimidated or threatened
by your stupid ass. And I'll even go out of my way to make things hard
for you. As I said in email Jerk, You don't have shit in this scene, and
you will never be accepted in the scene. your a lamer.
> Vx's anonymity antics invites such speculation. Its all part of the
> nature of this "game" that both sides "love" to play! The other stuff
> is in comparison - everyday boredomsville... :o(
Well.. Uhh, lets see... I've been in the scene for some time... Nobody
has managed to do anything to me so far. And they've tried. :) Graham
still likes to play Guess raids name from time to time, but it's
pointless. He knows he hasn't got anything on me.
Raid
says...
> >weakness?), you let slip about who you really are? But hey - its safe
> >with me. Just be a little more careful next time! OK?
>
> expect to get it from me, though I've noticed this morning some
> attempts by whomever to break into my mailbox(s)... :o(
Shrug, Barlev.. the email header from my yahoo.com account isn't really
my true identity. Nothing on this computer or any connections it makes to
the outside world contain such information.
> In the spirit of give and take, Raid has something of mine that should
> never be made public. Raid very well understands this and I totally
> rely upon his responsible integrity to honour this.
And as I said, I wouldn't fork such info. You have my word.
Inspector Clueless...
>Shrug, Barlev.. the email header from my yahoo.com account isn't really
>my true identity.
Of course JG is a red herring as was DW for Vic. We all now know that
mate.
>> In the spirit of give and take, Raid has something of mine that should
>> never be made public. Raid very well understands this and I totally
>> rely upon his responsible integrity to honour this.
>
>And as I said, I wouldn't fork such info. You have my word.
Many thanks. Btw, that info as given to yourself and a few select
others was genuine, ie it was not intended as a trick, though it may
have seemed that way, sorry.
Regards,
Brien - Inspector Clueless... ;o)
Art Kopp
Clueless...) wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:20:30 -0400, Raid <No-reply available> wrote:
>
>>But er, in this case; Art has no real idea. I'm sure the avers would
>>shitthemselves if they knew I have security in some very high military
>>plants for computer related activities related to my job. I actually hold
>>valid security clearances. Muahahaha.
>
>Should you sound so cocky here Raid, when (during a moment of careless
>weakness?), you let slip about who you really are? But hey - its safe
>with me. Just be a little more careful next time! OK?
>
>>Art like most of the others not in the scene Pax, guesses about us most
>>of the time. And forms opinions based on viruses alone; Total disregard
>>for other activities we may do.
>
>Vx's anonymity antics invites such speculation. Its all part of the
>nature of this "game" that both sides "love" to play! The other stuff
>is in comparison - everyday boredomsville... :o(
The 'game' that I find amusing is the one played by Pax and Raid. They
seem to be getting some yuks out of sterotyping me as 'one of those'
who paints vxers as having green hair and being on drugs. All because
I cringe every time I see bullshit about viruses being a wonderful
study of artificial life. LOL. And probably also because they know I
cannot relate to them or understand them except through dim memories
of once being a somewhat irresponible and immature adolescent
prankster myself.
But I was never destructive and I never could understand the
propensity in others. I recall when I was about 10 years old with some
other boys who thought it great sport to throw rocks at street lamps
and knock them out. It was a real turn-off for me and it left me
really puzzled. All I could think of was that some poor slob was going
to have to repair the thing ... and for what? Nothing! No good reason
whatsoever! Just plain rotten maliciousness. Instances of this even
today almost make me want to puke.
I don't really hate malicious assholes even though I tend to react
violently when threatened by them. I have no real interest in
understanding such fucked up people either. Nor do I stereotype them
in any way other than seeing the common trait of mindless and
disgusting destructive behaviour.
Oh well, enough rambling for now ...
Art
Inspector Clueless...
wrote:
>But I was never destructive and I never could understand the
>propensity in others. I recall when I was about 10 years old with some
>other boys who thought it great sport to throw rocks at street lamps
>and knock them out. It was a real turn-off for me and it left me
>really puzzled.
Geez Art! That's a bit tactless - comparing mindless 10 yr olds to
today's current crop of Vxers, unless of course you're only referring
to the likes of script kiddies etc...
>I don't really hate malicious assholes even though I tend to react
>violently when threatened by them.
Like throwing up, only?
>I have no real interest in understanding such fucked up people either.
Some peoples make a profession out of doing so.
Regards,
Brien
Inspector Clueless...
>As I said in email Jerk, You don't have shit in this scene, and
>you will never be accepted in the scene. your a lamer.
As I've said before elsewhere, being neither AV and Vx, without fear I
can freely be a pain in da ass. To both sides, equally... ;o(
>Well.. Uhh, lets see... I've been in the scene for some time... Nobody
>has managed to do anything to me so far. And they've tried. :)
OK, but by your own reckoning - you've had a close shave. Too close
for your own comfort.
>Graham still likes to play Guess raids name from time to time, but it's
>pointless. He knows he hasn't got anything on me.
Let him, keep quessing then... ;o)
Regards,
Brien
Art Kopp
Clueless...) wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 22:24:14 GMT, art...@mindsprung.com (Art Kopp)
>wrote:
>
>>But I was never destructive and I never could understand the
>>propensity in others. I recall when I was about 10 years old with some
>>other boys who thought it great sport to throw rocks at street lamps
>>and knock them out. It was a real turn-off for me and it left me
>>really puzzled.
>
>Geez Art! That's a bit tactless - comparing mindless 10 yr olds to
>today's current crop of Vxers,
Now that's a laugh. Tact? To intruders? To mindless creeps who invade
my space with their crapware? To fucking goddam criminals? Geez!
> unless of course you're only referring
>to the likes of script kiddies etc...
Nope. All the mindless intruders.
>>I don't really hate malicious assholes even though I tend to react
>>violently when threatened by them.
>
>Like throwing up, only?
No, like wringing their necks!
Art :)
Inspector Clueless...
wrote:
>Mindless?? you think learning assembler is easy?or Asic or any other PC
>language.?
But its seemingly easier than remembering how old you are PaX? Should
I drop you a clue? You're something like in ya mid thirties... ;o)
>To sit in judgement of us you have to know us or you risk making wide
>ranging statements that do nobody justice and just display total ignorance
>of the facts.
Well said - not that I know anything about this of course, to pass any
judgement on this issue and associated topics... ;o(
Regardless,
Inspector Clueless....
PaX [SlaM]
understanding such fucked up people either. Nor do I stereotype them
in any way other than seeing the common trait of mindless and
disgusting destructive behaviour. <<<<<<
I won't speak for RaiD but I can offer my own opinions...
Once again you hate what we do and yet you have no real idea who we are....
On your way to work tomorrow you get mugged and decide it would be prudent
to contact the law enforcement agency..
Mr Ive Eaten too many doughnuts directs you to an office down the hall and
says "here give this man your statement".
Great so you spend an hour talking to the honourable officer and leave
knowing that your situation is in safe hands...
So who is the honourable officer??
>>>seeing the common trait of mindless and
disgusting destructive behaviour. <<<<<<<<<<<
Mindless?? you think learning assembler is easy?or Asic or any other PC
language.?
Destructive? How many viruses do you think are written by my kind that never
see the light of day? most likely far more than you can imagine...
Common Traits...well there are sure not many of those within the Vx
community,each person is an individual not just a member of 29a,SlaM,FS etc
etc..
To sit in judgement of us you have to know us or you risk making wide
ranging statements that do nobody justice and just display total ignorance
of the facts.
Virus Writers in general don't spend their entire lives working to cause
damage,you may well once again be supprised by how little effort is put into
creating them.For me viruses are the culmination of a bored mind and a wish
to explore,that however does not mean I wish to do anybody any harm.
regards PaX [SlaM]
Inspector Clueless...
wrote:
>Now that's a laugh. Tact? To intruders? To mindless creeps who invade
>my space with their crapware? To fucking goddam criminals? Geez!
Yeah, I know the feeling! Like the time some creepy assholes broke
into my house while I was out for only a few hours running with H
cubed, that's the Hash House Harriers.
>>Like throwing up, only?
>
>No, like wringing their necks!
Besides strangling rats, daily wanking helps to strenghten the wrists
into top physical condition for such a task! ;o)
Regards,
Brien
Art Kopp
wrote:
>>>>seeing the common trait of mindless and
>disgusting destructive behaviour. <<<<<<<<<<<
>
>Mindless?? you think learning assembler is easy?or Asic or any other PC
>language.?
Mindless as in thoughtless. I know assembler and other languages as
well. So what? What has any of that have to do with the issue of
fucking criminal intrusion???? Am I supposed to be in awe of creeps
who learn how to code just to become criminal intruders? Geez!
>Destructive? How many viruses do you think are written by my kind that never
>see the light of day? most likely far more than you can imagine..
Good. Masturbate all you want. Just keep your crap off the internet
and we have no issue! Better yet, do something worthwhile.
>Common Traits...well there are sure not many of those within the Vx
>community,each person is an individual not just a member of 29a,SlaM,FS etc
>etc..
As I have said, the common trait I see is a propensity to be
destructive .... to intrude upon others.
>To sit in judgement of us you have to know us or you risk making wide
>ranging statements that do nobody justice and just display total ignorance
>of the facts.
Sit in judgement my ass! Keep the fuck out of my PC and we don't have
a problem, ok?
>Virus Writers in general don't spend their entire lives working to cause
>damage,you may well once again be supprised by how little effort is put into
>creating them.For me viruses are the culmination of a bored mind and a wish
>to explore,that however does not mean I wish to do anybody any harm.
How unfortunate that you never found something truly worthwhile to get
your teeth sunk into. I loved my engineering career. It was rewarding
in many ways.
>regards PaX [SlaM]
Regards,
Art
Inspector Clueless...
wrote:
>>Common Traits...well there are sure not many of those within the Vx
>>community,each person is an individual not just a member of 29a,SlaM,FS etc
>>etc..
>
>As I have said, the common trait I see is a propensity to be
>destructive .... to intrude upon others.
Unfortunately this observation still largely holds true. But what
could possibly future Meta-Vxers achieve if they would abide by some
acceptable protocols?
>Sit in judgement my ass! Keep the fuck out of my PC and we don't have
>a problem, ok?
A very well understood gut reaction for sure. Totally agree with you
there Art!
>How unfortunate that you never found something truly worthwhile to get
>your teeth sunk into. I loved my engineering career. It was rewarding
>in many ways.
May I take the liberty here of pointing out what Sarah Gordon has most
thoughtfully suggested to the up and coming generation, at her
recently developed website? - http://www.badguys.org
The following is the concluding paragraphs of -
http://www.badguys.org/forkids.htm
<quote>
If you're a young person interested in learning more about a career in
computers, check out the Facts on File series of books.
Most importantly, STAY IN SCHOOL.
You might consider studying a variety of subjects in University as I
did: law, ethics, computer science, and lots of "human behaviour"
courses all helped build the perspective I have now on the whole
cyber-thing.
Don't limit yourself to studying "just computers".
The challenges we face today and in the future are a combination of
technical, legal, and social. Sure, you might choose to approach the
problem from only one of these angles - but you'd better have a
thorough understanding of ALL of them if you want to develop effective
solutions!.
We need young people who can see the big picture!
</quote>
sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk
available (Raid) wrote:
> Graham still likes to play Guess raids name from time to time,
> but it's pointless. He knows he hasn't got anything on me.
Nonsense. I've never played that game. I just sometimes call you by
names you've chosen to use from time to time.
And alerted you to when other people have chosen to use your pseudonyms
when spreading viruses in the wild. Surprised you aren't trying more to
stop them doing that.
--
Graham Cluley, Head of Corporate Communications, Sophos Anti-Virus
email: gcl...@sophos.com http://www.sophos.com
US Support: +1 888 SOPHOS 9 UK Support: +44 1235 559933
Raid
says...
> As I've said before elsewhere, being neither AV and Vx, without fear I
> can freely be a pain in da ass. To both sides, equally... ;o(
Your hardly a pain in the ass for me.
> OK, but by your own reckoning - you've had a close shave. Too close
> for your own comfort.
Yes, which had nothing to do with you.
Raid
sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk says...
TeeHee. Your ever so amusing Graham.
Patricia A. Shaffer
wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 10:30:07 -0400, Patricia A. Shaffer
><ra...@swva.net> wrote:
>
>>Are you saying that learning how to code self-replicating programs is a
>>waste of time? That learning how to create something that can survive
>>and overcome barriers to that survival is useless. Hmmm ... seems to me
>>that it could give one insight into life itself. Isn't that the goal of
>>AI work? And you have to admit, there aren't many AI manuals written
>>for mass media. I think I would like to try to write a virus just to
>>see if I could still cram a little more experience into my wetware data
>>banks. <g>
>
>Patricia, I imagine those PhD types who do artificial life and AI work
>are laughing their butts off at your naive comments here. C'mon now,
>please quit this crap and stick with the moral arguments you are so
>good at :) Computer malware is crapware. Period! Please don't
>contribute to the egos and attempts at creating a mystique and genius
>image that these clown vxers try to perpetrate. You are working
>against yourself (and myself and others) here.
Sorry to be so late in my reply, Art, but it's been one of those hellish
weeks ... one of these days I shall try to collate data on death
statistics for the change of seasons ... for some reason, they tend to
cluster.
Why should anyone laugh at ignorance or naivete? The fact that I don't
know much about a particular thing is nothing of which to be ashamed.
If I cam curious about it, I will learn more. If it is not a pressing
curiosity, I may choose to let it wait until I have more time to spare
on it. I am not a PhD type ... by choice ... but I do have a healthy
thirst to learn, and I have pretty good retention for what I learn.
Point: a self-replicating program does not have to be malware. It could
be nothing more than an experiment or a personal test of one's ability
to apply one's knowledge.
Point: The only ones who can create a mystique are those who live it an
those who observe it. So far I've seen no mystique in either side.
Most of the hype and bombast come from egos, TTBOMK mostly masculine. I
don't play ego games ... it just isn't worth the effort.
Point: I am not working for anyone here except myself ... and for
myself, I seek knowledge and understanding of how things are done, out
of curiosity, and out of a desire to keep my data secure from malware,
spyware and spam.
Other than that, I verbalize my opinions, from time to time, just like
everyone else in Usenet. YMMV.
Happy Autumnal Equinox!
--
Patricia
Proud Citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia
"Anti-spammers are the immune system of the Internet." (CDR M. Dobson)
"The spam wars are about rendering email useless for unsolicited
advertising before unsolicited advertising renders email useless
for communication."(Walter Dnes/Jeff Wynn) Opt-out is cop-out! <http://www.cauce.org>
PaX [SlaM]
Feel free to try little man...Ive taken down far worse than you will ever
be.
Like I said...you have no idea what you are dealing with
PaX [SlaM]
PaX [SlaM]
be nothing more than an experiment or a personal test of one's ability
to apply one's knowledge.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Ahh understanding from the good lady=]
regards Dalt
Art Kopp
<ra...@swva.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Other than that, I verbalize my opinions, from time to time, just like
>everyone else in Usenet. YMMV.
Yep. Thought I'd let loose with my bottom line!
>Happy Autumnal Equinox!
It is a beautiful day here in central Pennsylvania!
Art
Lee Higdon
you? I didn't read it like anyone was challenging "you" to a fight. Besides,
if you have a healthy sense of self esteem, what does it matter what anyone
"says"? Save your anger for when someone challenges you to your face. It's
much more rewarding then :-).
"PaX [SlaM]" <P...@SlaM-VT.org.uk> wrote in message
news:8qfvol$4mj$1...@gxsn.com...
PaX [SlaM]
you? I didn't read it like anyone was challenging "you" to a fight. Besides,
if you have a healthy sense of self esteem, what does it matter what anyone
"says"? Save your anger for when someone challenges you to your face. It's
much more rewarding then :-).<<<<<<<
Heya Lee,
I'm not a violent person by nature,it's also very rare I
take anything personally even in my often occuring scrapes with Nick.I get a
little ticked off when people offer opinions on things they don't have all
the facts too.Art's general attitude appeared to be that *ALL* virus writers
are evil,*NO* virus writer is could possibly hold a job that involves
responsibility or authority and that we are all of the same mind.
I can understand that it sometimes could be easy to confuse us as all being
the same because unlike other factions of socity we chose not to do our
buisness with each other in public.ie:If say RaiD for example says or does
something I didn't like then I would take it up with him privatley and I
know he would do the same (Sorry raidey just an example nothing personel).
Art's loss of control demonstrated by his abusive language just illustrated
that his arguments were flawed and the only recourse was to issue *threats*
or other manner of ill informed staements..
On a personel note...being honest Lee i've never really cared what anybody
thinks of me...love me hate me...it's not important..
The only real time Ive taken exception to anybody here has been Barlev,I
don't actually hate him or even dislike him..i feel sorry for him that his
life hasnt amounted to more than a weasel that has to dig up half truths
about us.
>>>Save your anger for when someone challenges you to your face. It's
much more rewarding then <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I've faced situations professionally that have resulted in the required use
of force of varying degrees and never take any pleasure at having to hurt
somebody.
however in the same context i have also never run from anything either=]
best wishes Dalt
Inspector Clueless...
wrote in reply to Patricia:
Indeed, the "testware" becomes malware via deployment beyond protocol.
Without protocols societies stumble towards - well, we all know only
too well, what... :o(
And as to the winds of change, how strong will they blow around these
parts, if at all?
Regardless,
Inspector ScrewLoose...
Inspector Clueless...
>Your hardly a pain in the ass for me.
Believe me, I'm actually very thankful for that... :o)
>> OK, but by your own reckoning - you've had a close shave. Too close
>> for your own comfort.
>
>Yes, which had nothing to do with you.
Again thankfully, this is very true, though at one stage last year
Darren seemed to suspect otherwise... :o(
Honestly, I was but a silent spectator, watching from the sidelines.
Regardless,
Inspector ScrewLoose...
Inspector Clueless...
wrote:
>I'm not a violent person by nature,it's also very rare I
>take anything personally even in my often occuring scrapes with Nick.
But what have you done with Nick's corpse, or is he just laying low,
building up to his VB2000 splash?
>The only real time Ive taken exception to anybody here has been Barlev,I
>don't actually hate him or even dislike him..i feel sorry for him that his
>life hasnt amounted to more than a weasel that has to dig up half truths
>about us.
Save your pity PaX for Vic if he can not swing things around for
himself. He's been told what's expected of him. May he have a man's
courage to do the decent thing!
Regardless,
Inspector ScrewLoose...
kurt wismer
> >>>>>I don't really hate malicious assholes even though I tend to react
> violently when threatened by them. I have no real interest in
> understanding such fucked up people either. Nor do I stereotype them
> in any way other than seeing the common trait of mindless and
> disgusting destructive behaviour. <<<<<<
>
> I won't speak for RaiD but I can offer my own opinions...
> Once again you hate what we do
why do you use the word "we"? i thought you made a point of avoiding the
malicious stuff?
> and yet you have no real idea who we are....
s/he (whoever it is, you always leave out quote attribution) dislikes
malicious acts... i don't think it matters who is on the giving end or
who is on the receiving end, malice is bad regardless...
--
"look at me a million times, you think my brain is rabid
coming back to me, they swear to god i am a savage
i don't like the faces well i'm certain now you're clear
they begin to stop me, you won't like it when i stare"
Patricia A. Shaffer
wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:54:44 -0400, Patricia A. Shaffer
My family spent several years in the Chambersburg/Gettysburg area ...
it's where I made my decision that *my* place was going to be in the
Appalachian Mountains. The trees on the mountain my desk faces have
begun to change color already, and today I watched a yearling Golden
Eagle successfully strike prey in the hayfield across the road.
Patricia A. Shaffer
wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Patricia A. Shaffer wrote:
>
>> On 20 Sep 2000 09:29:46 GMT, sop...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> >In article <6s8fsscig54736f1i...@4ax.com>, ra...@swva.net
>> >(Patricia A. Shaffer) wrote:
>> >
>> >> I can think of one thing ... it would show vxers that there
>> >> is an opportunity for legitimate expression of their talents.
>> >
>> >As someone who works in anti-virus I would rather not suggest that writing
>> >viruses is a legitimate way into the industry. I think that would be a
>> >bad message to send out to people considering writing viruses.
>>
>> Are you saying that learning how to code self-replicating programs is a
>> waste of time?
>
>his statement was about doing, not learning...
>
>there is no legitimate reason to reward virus writers for writing
>viruses - employing them because they were/are virus writers is such a
>reward...
And *not* employing them solely *because* they have admitted that, in
the past, they have *written* viruses is a punishment, and it is my
opinion that it would be unjust. Writing viruses is not illegal.
Patricia A. Shaffer
wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, PaX [SlaM] wrote:
>
>> >>>>In fact, the talk I am giving with Carole Theriault at VB2000 next week
>> touches on how businesses can better deal with the virus threat in ways
>> which don't involve giving anti-virus companies money.
>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>
>> That makes you the exception instead of the rule Graham.
>
>really? how many vb conferences have you attended - somehow i can't see
>them being so popular if "give us money and we'll solve your problems" is
>the rule rather than the exception at such events...
At the price they charge to attend, who can afford to do so? I thought
I might take a few days off and fly down to Florida just so I could meet
some of the acv contributors ... sorry, folks, the conference fee is
plumb out of my price range!
Bart Bailey
>
>
> We have a test at Sophos we apply to incoming staff. I'm afraid it's
> company confidential so I can't tell you what it is up here - but it does
> ensure no virus writers get through the front door.
So you give these "tests" in the parking lot? or just take vXers through the
"back"door ;-)
~~Bart~~
Bart Bailey
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 10:30:07 -0400, Patricia A. Shaffer
> <ra...@swva.net> wrote:
>
> >Are you saying that learning how to code self-replicating programs is a
> >waste of time? That learning how to create something that can survive
> >and overcome barriers to that survival is useless. Hmmm ... seems to me
> >that it could give one insight into life itself. Isn't that the goal of
> >AI work? And you have to admit, there aren't many AI manuals written
> >for mass media. I think I would like to try to write a virus just to
> >see if I could still cram a little more experience into my wetware data
> >banks. <g>
Good luck and success.
>
> Patricia, I imagine those PhD types who do artificial life and AI work
> are laughing their butts off at your naive comments here. C'mon now,
> please quit this crap and stick with the moral arguments you are so
> good at :) Computer malware is crapware. Period!
More of an expedient generalization than a considered examination of the
reality of the phenomenon.
> Please don't
> contribute to the egos and attempts at creating a mystique and genius
> image that these clown vxers try to perpetrate. You are working
> against yourself (and myself and others) here.
I would suspect your negative exhortations contribute more to the egos of
those who already feel somewhat outcast and might also serve as impetus to
create an even more notorious example of their talent.
>
>
> Art
~~Bart~~