Ping Edwin: Virus damage
Tim Murray
tidbits from the July 10 Information Week, in an article on the worst worms
and viruses of all time. Your post was mostly in regard to the quantity of
viruses, but nonetheless, I thought you would find this ... interesting. Even
if the numbers are off by an order of magnitude -- that means 10 for those of
you in Rio Linda -- it's still impressive.
CIH (Chernobyl) : $20 to $80 million in damage.
Melissa: 15 to 20 percent of all business PSc, $300 to $600 million in
damage. Intel, Oracle, and Microsoft shut down their e-mail systems to
contain it.
ILoveYou: $10 to $15 billion in damage.
BubbleBoy: Little damage, but you didn't have to open an attachment --
reading the e-mail was sufficient.
Code Red: rand for about 20 days, 300,000 servers, $2.6 billion damage.
400,000 web pages in a few hours.
SQL Slammer: Infected 75,000 computers in 10 minutes, overloaded routers
around the globe, 500,000 servers, shut down South Korea for 12 hours.
Blaster: Hundreds of thousands of PCs, $2 to $10 billion damage.
SoBig.F: Million copies in 24 hours. $5 to $10 in damage. Microsoft put a
$250,000 bounty out on the author.
Bagle: One of the first back doors to open a port, millions of $.
MyDoom: Slowed global internet performance by 10% and page loads by 50%.
Speculators claim 1 in 10 e-mails in the first hours of infection carried the
worm [I find that hard to believe. -Ed.]
Sasser: Shut down satellite communication for some French news agencies [They
have news? -Ed.] and caused Delta to cancel some flights.
Snit
jpolaski-242C86...@netnews.comcast.net on 7/18/06 8:08 PM:
> In article <0001HW.C0E30FF0...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
> Slade also says this doesn't happen.
And Josh seems resistant to it... he likes to put words into other people's
mouths, but I shall not do the same to him and say he has outright denies
the above... but he has said that adding the cost of anti-malware software
to price comparisons is not fair because such software is not needed on XP.
--
€ As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Edwin
> A while back you were downplaying virus issues,
No, a while back I showed how the virus problem is overstated by some,
mostly by those who profit from doing so.
None of that affected me, nor my employer, nor anybody I know.
Anti-Virus: Learn it, Love it, Live it.
--
What would that topic be? R'lyeh? Are you now claiming that R'lyeh isn't
a sunken city because that would go against your holy belief in the
non-existance [sic] of Global Warming? -- Lars Träger June 25, 2006
Snit
b2svg.10136$2v....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net on 7/19/06 8:17 AM:
> Tim Murray wrote:
>> A while back you were downplaying virus issues,
>
> No, a while back I showed how the virus problem is overstated by some,
> mostly by those who profit from doing so.
Do you think MS overstates the virus problems for users of their OS?
--
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
Edwin
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
> b2svg.10136$2v....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net on 7/19/06 8:17 AM:
>
>> Tim Murray wrote:
>>> A while back you were downplaying virus issues,
>> No, a while back I showed how the virus problem is overstated by some,
>> mostly by those who profit from doing so.
>
> Do you think MS overstates the virus problems for users of their OS?
Why do you ask, gluehead?
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
>> b2svg.10136$2v....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net on 7/19/06 8:17 AM:
>>
>>> Tim Murray wrote:
>>>> A while back you were downplaying virus issues,
>>> No, a while back I showed how the virus problem is overstated by some,
>>> mostly by those who profit from doing so.
>>
>> Do you think MS overstates the virus problems for users of their OS?
>
> Why do you ask, gluehead?
>
Wow, not only does Edwin manage to avoid the question, he throws in some
Carrollesque name calling as well.
Does anyone think Edwin takes pride in his antics? Anyone?
--
€ Professionals are not beginners in their field
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are web design applications
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Edwin
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
> F4uvg.51706$VE1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 7/19/06 10:36 AM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
>>> b2svg.10136$2v....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net on 7/19/06 8:17 AM:
>>>
>>>> Tim Murray wrote:
>>>>> A while back you were downplaying virus issues,
>>>> No, a while back I showed how the virus problem is overstated by some,
>>>> mostly by those who profit from doing so.
>>> Do you think MS overstates the virus problems for users of their OS?
>> Why do you ask, gluehead?
>>
> Wow, not only does Edwin manage to avoid the question,
Why should I bother with an irrelevant question?
> he throws in some
> Carrollesque name calling as well.
No extra charge.
> Does anyone think Edwin takes pride in his antics? Anyone?
Speak up, Sigmond.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
>> F4uvg.51706$VE1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 7/19/06 10:36 AM:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
>>>> b2svg.10136$2v....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net on 7/19/06 8:17 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> Tim Murray wrote:
>>>>>> A while back you were downplaying virus issues,
>>>>> No, a while back I showed how the virus problem is overstated by some,
>>>>> mostly by those who profit from doing so.
>>>> Do you think MS overstates the virus problems for users of their OS?
>>> Why do you ask, gluehead?
>>>
>> Wow, not only does Edwin manage to avoid the question,
>
> Why should I bother with an irrelevant question?
Do you expect me to answer that
[Edwin get the irony meter to go off the scale!]
>
>> he throws in some
>> Carrollesque name calling as well.
>
> No extra charge.
>
>> Does anyone think Edwin takes pride in his antics? Anyone?
>
> Speak up, Sigmond.
Carroll will come in to spew his BS soon, don't you worry!
"I admitted to posting as sigmond" - Steve Carroll
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
I seem resistant to what?
> he likes to put words into other people's mouths,
Such as?
> but I shall not do the same to him and say he has outright denies the above...
You essentially just did.
> but he has said that adding the cost of anti-malware software to price comparisons is not
> fair because such software is not needed on XP.
It's not. I've been using Windows 2000 for over six years without
anti-malware software. And as I have proven to you not a single
infection. If it were needed then I should have been infected. The fact
that I have not proves that it's not needed.
But let's take a look at the list:
1. CIH - April 1999 (W95/98/ME only): Non-admin
2. Melissa - March 1999: User interaction
3. ILoveYou - May 2000: Non-admin
4. BubbleBoy - November 1999: Non-admin
5. Code Red - July 2001 (IIS Server): Firewall, patch
6. SQL Slammer - January 2003 (SQL Server): Firewall, patch
7. Blaster - August 2003: Non-admin
8. SoBig.F - August 2003: Non-admin
9. Bagle - January 2004: Non-admin
10. MyDoom - January 2004: Non-admin
11. Sasser - April 2004: XP Firewall
The top 11 consists of malware that is at least two years old. Not a
very compelling list representing today's threats. I've taken the
liberty to quickly review the infection vector of each one and have
provided the means from which the user could have been protected from
the malware. You'll see that in almost every case, save for Melissa,
using the suggestions that I've mentioned previously would have
prevented the infection. As for Melissa, well, there's not much you can
do for user stupidity. Even on the Mac.
Josh
Jim Lee Jr.
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
> It's not. I've been using Windows 2000 for over six years without
> anti-malware software. And as I have proven to you not a single
> infection. If it were needed then I should have been infected. The fact
> that I have not proves that it's not needed.
>
> Josh
Have you connected your Windoze 2000 machine to the Net unprotected? If
not, see how long it takes for it to get infected.
Josh McKee
Mitch
> Have you connected your Windoze 2000 machine to the Net unprotected? If
> not, see how long it takes for it to get infected.
The problem with that is it takes the protection software to learn when
it gets infected -- the first time they check to see if it's infected,
it's going to be protected.
Windows users simply CANNOT determine whether they are infected just by
checking -- there are far far too many ways and things to look for.
That is one of the reasons users with no protection can't meaningfully
make the statement they have never had a problem -- it's very unlikely
they could know!
Jim Lee Jr.
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
> In article <peejster01-04739...@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> "Jim Lee Jr." <peejs...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <jtmckee-AF29E4...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> > Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > It's not. I've been using Windows 2000 for over six years without
> > > anti-malware software. And as I have proven to you not a single
> > > infection. If it were needed then I should have been infected. The fact
> > > that I have not proves that it's not needed.
> > >
> > > Josh
> >
> > Have you connected your Windoze 2000 machine to the Net unprotected? If
> > not, see how long it takes for it to get infected.
>
> Why would I want to do that?
>
> Josh
For bragging how "good" Windoze 2000 is protected against malware sans
anti-malware applications.
Josh McKee
Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
> In article <peejster01-04739...@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> Jim Lee Jr. <peejs...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> > Have you connected your Windoze 2000 machine to the Net unprotected? If
> > not, see how long it takes for it to get infected.
>
>
> The problem with that is it takes the protection software to learn when
> it gets infected -- the first time they check to see if it's infected,
> it's going to be protected.
I have been using Windows malware free without any anti-malware software.
> Windows users simply CANNOT determine whether they are infected just by
> checking -- there are far far too many ways and things to look for.
Sure they can. I've done it without problem. Just because you're
unfamiliar with Windows doesn't mean that everyone is.
> That is one of the reasons users with no protection can't meaningfully
> make the statement they have never had a problem -- it's very unlikely
> they could know!
I've made it and supported it.
Josh
Josh McKee
"Jim Lee Jr." <peejs...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> In article <jtmckee-75380E...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <peejster01-04739...@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> > "Jim Lee Jr." <peejs...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <jtmckee-AF29E4...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> > > Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > It's not. I've been using Windows 2000 for over six years without
> > > > anti-malware software. And as I have proven to you not a single
> > > > infection. If it were needed then I should have been infected. The fact
> > > > that I have not proves that it's not needed.
> > > >
> > > > Josh
> > >
> > > Have you connected your Windoze 2000 machine to the Net unprotected? If
> > > not, see how long it takes for it to get infected.
> >
> > Why would I want to do that?
> >
> > Josh
>
> For bragging how "good" Windoze 2000 is protected against malware sans
> anti-malware applications.
Already done. That's the way it's been running for all of those years.
Josh
Snit
jtmckee-AF29E4...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/19/06 3:49 PM:
> In article <C0E2F419.55837%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Jim Polaski" <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> stated in post
>> jpolaski-242C86...@netnews.comcast.net on 7/18/06 8:08 PM:
>>
>>> In article <0001HW.C0E30FF0...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
>>> Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A while back you were downplaying virus issues, so I thought I'd snip a few
>>>> tidbits from the July 10 Information Week, in an article on the worst worms
>>>> and viruses of all time. Your post was mostly in regard to the quantity of
>>>> viruses, but nonetheless, I thought you would find this ... interesting.
>>>> Even if the numbers are off by an order of magnitude -- that means 10 for
>>>> those of you in Rio Linda -- it's still impressive.
<SNIP />
>>> Slade also says this doesn't happen.
>>
>> And Josh seems resistant to it...
>
> I seem resistant to what?
The idea that such outbreaks happen - you have stated in the past that
including the cost of malware prevention in TCO studies is not something you
support. The fact that malware does so much damage is clear reason why
measures should be taken to prevent being hit by it.
>
>> he likes to put words into other people's mouths,
>
> Such as?
Your claiming views you say "Maccies" have and then including people who do
not have those views in your grouping.
For example:
> Do you believe that something designed with security in mind
> *never* gets breached? If so, you boogie man is yourself.
> If not, you just failed to make a point.
This isn't about what I believe. This is what the Maccies believe.
Yet you call me a Maccie and I do *not* believe that.
> Does *anyone* expect every hole to be exploited?
Maccies do when it comes to Windows.
Same thing... what "Maccies" say what you attribute to them?
when AV companies make comments about Mac infections rates the
Maccies immediately claim they're wrong
Again, what Maccies? You again grouped a bunch of people together and then
painted them with a broad brush while never defending your claims.
I said that *if* Microsoft made Windows exactly like OS X the
Maccies would find fault with it solely based on the fact that it came
from Microsoft.
Ditto above.
> I would not approve if they made an exact copy, but I can see what
> you mean. There will always be those that look to find fault with
> MS... or Apple.
George has already admitted as much.
To make it seem as though George had done as you said you quoted the first
several words of his sentence and dishonestly snipped the rest.
I've tried. Even offered them money. But curiously they refused.
Something you're doing now.
You stated this even though I repeatedly told you I would welcome taking you
up on your offer (with the condition that you did not expect me to work for
more than an hour or so for the $50 you offered).
> You act as if that definition were cast in stone and therefore
> I am incorrectly using it.
Being that I had offered other definitions (you snipped them), your
statement was clearly dishonest - you were trying to put words in my mouth.
You have also snipped my support (for example of why UI matters) and then
claimed I did not post the support. I suppose this is you trying to *take*
words from my mouth.
You both put words into people's mouths and deny the words that they have
said. Heck, it is pretty easy to spot when you go into this mode... you
start using the term "Maccie". There are likely exceptions, but in general
when you start your derogatory name calling you also start putting words in
other people's mouths.
>> but I shall not do the same to him and say he has outright denies the
>> above...
>
> You essentially just did.
Being that I did not, you have *again* just tried to state what *I* said,
despite the fact that I had not. Do you not see how your actions are not
honest?
>> but he has said that adding the cost of anti-malware software to price
>> comparisons is not fair because such software is not needed on XP.
>
> It's not.
In the past you have claimed, "it depends". Depends on what? You never did
say.
> 2) Do you believe people, in general, should use anti-malware
> software?
It depends. What does it depend on? Many different things.
> 3) Do you believe the cost of such software should be included in
> general ROI/TCO studies?
Again it depends based on on the same as above.
From a past post:
-----
What you have not done, of course, is outline the conditions you think
decide if someone should use anti-malware software nor have you explained
when you think it is appropriate for ROI/TCO studies to include such
software. With the amount of time and effort you have spent avoiding
answering the questions there is no reason to think you have a reasoned
answer. If it helps you to sleep better at night thinking you have
convinced anyone you do have such knowledge, I wish you sweet dreams.
-----
All you did was snip and run... now you have changed your position from "it
depends" to "It's not". You clearly have a poor grasp of the topic.
Nothing below indicates you have gained the ability to respond to the above
in a reasoned way.
--
Mitch
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
> > The problem with that is it takes the protection software to learn when
> > it gets infected -- the first time they check to see if it's infected,
> > it's going to be protected.
>
> I have been using Windows malware free without any anti-malware software.
>
> > Windows users simply CANNOT determine whether they are infected just by
> > checking -- there are far far too many ways and things to look for.
>
> Sure they can. I've done it without problem. Just because you're
> unfamiliar with Windows doesn't mean that everyone is.
Okay; so answer my challenge to it -- how did you determine that you
had no infections, no malware, and no hidden files doing ANY KIND of
unwanted activity?
Are you so familiar with Windows that you actually know the path and
size and purpose of EVERY FILE EVERYWHERE?
> > That is one of the reasons users with no protection can't meaningfully
> > make the statement they have never had a problem -- it's very unlikely
> > they could know!
>
> I've made it and supported it.
No, you've made the claim, but I don't think you have ever done
ANYTHING to support that you were correct asserting your complete and
total lack of any kind of trouble at all over many years of operation
with no attention, no checking, no protection, and no system
reinstalls.
Three people make that claim regularly -- not one, to my knowledge, has
ever shown why they could know or how they could determine that without
ANY kind of extra work on their part.
Josh McKee
Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
> In article <jtmckee-C89CA2...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
>
> > > The problem with that is it takes the protection software to learn when
> > > it gets infected -- the first time they check to see if it's infected,
> > > it's going to be protected.
> >
> > I have been using Windows malware free without any anti-malware software.
> >
> > > Windows users simply CANNOT determine whether they are infected just by
> > > checking -- there are far far too many ways and things to look for.
> >
> > Sure they can. I've done it without problem. Just because you're
> > unfamiliar with Windows doesn't mean that everyone is.
>
> Okay; so answer my challenge to it -- how did you determine that you
> had no infections, no malware, and no hidden files doing ANY KIND of
> unwanted activity?
Already done.
> Are you so familiar with Windows that you actually know the path and
> size and purpose of EVERY FILE EVERYWHERE?
No.
> > > That is one of the reasons users with no protection can't meaningfully
> > > make the statement they have never had a problem -- it's very unlikely
> > > they could know!
> >
> > I've made it and supported it.
> No, you've made the claim, but I don't think you have ever done
> ANYTHING to support that you were correct asserting your complete and
> total lack of any kind of trouble at all over many years of operation
> with no attention, no checking, no protection, and no system
> reinstalls.
Your ignorance is not my failure.
Josh
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
You really are desperate to arrive at such a conclusion based on that
reasoning. I fully acknowledge that outbreaks happen. What I keep
saying, and you fail to accept, is that taking a few basic, no cost
precautions can go a long way towards minimizing them. I even applied
those no cost suggestions to the list and you ignored them.
Josh
Snit
>> The idea that such outbreaks happen - you have stated in the past that
>> including the cost of malware prevention in TCO studies is not something you
>> support. The fact that malware does so much damage is clear reason why
>> measures should be taken to prevent being hit by it.
>
> You really are desperate to arrive at such a conclusion based on that
> reasoning.
My reasoning is completely logical:
A) Malware undeniably costs company's money
B) There are preventative measures that can be taken that are:
- relatively successful
- less expensive than the damage they may be hit with
Even if you could show that only a small number of businesses were hit with
malware, something I doubt you could show, taking preventative measures is
similar to having insurance - you hope you never need it but it is foolish
for a business to go without.
For you to conclude that using logic is "desperate" is silly and
disingenuous.
> I fully acknowledge that outbreaks happen.
And in the past you have even admitted that there are times when using
malware prevention measures make sense for a company and to include in TCO
studies, but you have failed to give any meaningful detail.
> 2) Do you believe people, in general, should use anti-malware
> software?
It depends. What does it depend on? Many different things.
> 3) Do you believe the cost of such software should be included in
> general ROI/TCO studies?
Again it depends based on on the same as above.
> What I keep saying, and you fail to accept, is that taking a few basic, no
> cost precautions can go a long way towards minimizing them.
Even setting up non-Admin accounts takes time and has a cost associated with
it. What no-cost measures are you thinking of and under what circumstances
would you think it fair to include for-cost measures in TCO studies.
In the end, Josh, you repeatedly avoid these questions, just as you avoided
commenting on my response to your question about when you have put words
into other people's mouths. At least you did not lie and try to deny it.
> I even applied those no cost suggestions to the list and you ignored them.
Are you in reference to the post of yours in this thread which I gave a long
and detailed response to?
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-A178D2...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/19/06 6:28 PM:
>
> >> The idea that such outbreaks happen - you have stated in the past that
> >> including the cost of malware prevention in TCO studies is not something
> >> you
> >> support. The fact that malware does so much damage is clear reason why
> >> measures should be taken to prevent being hit by it.
> >
> > You really are desperate to arrive at such a conclusion based on that
> > reasoning.
>
> My reasoning is completely logical:
>
> A) Malware undeniably costs company's money
If they succumb to it.
> B) There are preventative measures that can be taken that are:
> - relatively successful
> - less expensive than the damage they may be hit with
My suggestions are highly successful (as evidenced by my quick analysis
of these top 11) and very inexpensive (free). So we're in agreement.
Thus I fail to understand why you keep fighting me on this.
Josh
Snit
>>> You really are desperate to arrive at such a conclusion based on that
>>> reasoning.
>>
>> My reasoning is completely logical:
>>
>> A) Malware undeniably costs company's money
>
> If they succumb to it.
I was speaking in general terms - as in floods undeniably cost companies
money (correcting also for may grammar error). More companies, I would bet,
are hit with malware than with floods.
>> B) There are preventative measures that can be taken that are:
>> - relatively successful
>> - less expensive than the damage they may be hit with
--
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
> F4uvg.51706$VE1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 7/19/06 10:36 AM:
>
> > Snit wrote:
> >> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
> >> b2svg.10136$2v....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net on 7/19/06 8:17 AM:
> >>
> >>> Tim Murray wrote:
> >>>> A while back you were downplaying virus issues,
> >>> No, a while back I showed how the virus problem is overstated by some,
> >>> mostly by those who profit from doing so.
> >>
> >> Do you think MS overstates the virus problems for users of their OS?
> >
> > Why do you ask, gluehead?
> >
> Wow, not only does Edwin manage to avoid the question, he throws in some
> Carrollesque name calling as well.
>
> Does anyone think Edwin takes pride in his antics? Anyone?
Who are you talking about? Edwin may be a troll, but you're a lot more
disliked than Edwin could ever hope to become.
Alan Baker, 2006-02-27:
People's perceptions of you are *formed* by
behaviour and not withstanding your occasional on
topic posts, I wish you'd leave too. Please note
that despite the amazing silliness that is Edwin,
I have never made the same wish of him.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-D60E6F.09...@individual.net on 7/20/06 12:07 AM:
> In article <C0E3BE86.55926%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
>> F4uvg.51706$VE1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 7/19/06 10:36 AM:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
>>>> b2svg.10136$2v....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net on 7/19/06 8:17 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> Tim Murray wrote:
>>>>>> A while back you were downplaying virus issues,
>>>>> No, a while back I showed how the virus problem is overstated by some,
>>>>> mostly by those who profit from doing so.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think MS overstates the virus problems for users of their OS?
>>>
>>> Why do you ask, gluehead?
>>>
>> Wow, not only does Edwin manage to avoid the question, he throws in some
>> Carrollesque name calling as well.
>>
>> Does anyone think Edwin takes pride in his antics? Anyone?
>
> Who are you talking about? Edwin may be a troll, but you're a lot more
> disliked than Edwin could ever hope to become.
What does being disliked have to do with anything... and what makes you
think *anyone* dislikes me? I am not saying some don't - Carroll, for
example, clearly loathes me, but he denies it. Do you count him as
disliking me or not?
>
> Alan Baker, 2006-02-27:
> People's perceptions of you are *formed* by
> behaviour and not withstanding your occasional on
> topic posts, I wish you'd leave too. Please note
> that despite the amazing silliness that is Edwin,
> I have never made the same wish of him.
>
When your full (or even just primary) criteria / definition is that a troll
is someone who is called a troll, then sure, you can use that circular
reasoning as much as you wish, just do not expect me to buy into your
irrational need to further your agenda with such "reasoning".
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > Who are you talking about? Edwin may be a troll, but you're a lot more
> > disliked than Edwin could ever hope to become.
>
> What does being disliked have to do with anything... and what makes you
> think *anyone* dislikes me?
http://csma.sandman.net/TrollScoring/Snit
> > Alan Baker, 2006-02-27:
> > People's perceptions of you are *formed* by
> > behaviour and not withstanding your occasional on
> > topic posts, I wish you'd leave too. Please note
> > that despite the amazing silliness that is Edwin,
> > I have never made the same wish of him.
>
> When your full (or even just primary) criteria / definition is that a troll
> is someone who is called a troll, then sure, you can use that circular
> reasoning as much as you wish, just do not expect me to buy into your
> irrational need to further your agenda with such "reasoning".
When you can't counter facts, Michael, you re-paste past failed
attempts at "defenses". Every day.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Incorrect.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Geez, Snit, do you *ever* get a full night sleep? Anyway... let me draw
you a picture of a very stupid hypocrite (that'd be you)...
You're telling Sandman that people are not defined by how others see
their actions, yet, here you are... defining me as a person who
'loathes' you (an assessment that is obviously based on my actions) when
I have clearly stated nothing of the sort. You're making it too easy;)
I "actually" pity the 'student' who has you for a 'teacher'. Remember
this:
"Snit is an uber-troll of the worst order... nit's as likely to admit
error as E.Funkenbusch. If he really teaches (which I strongly doubt),
it must be awful to be taught by someone who cannot accept when they're
wrong, this being one of the fundamental methods for learning..." - Mark
Kent
Sums up your inability to learn quite nicely ;)
--
"Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself" - Snit
Snit
noone-78C7C4....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/20/06 7:04 AM:
>>>> Wow, not only does Edwin manage to avoid the question, he throws in some
>>>> Carrollesque name calling as well.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone think Edwin takes pride in his antics? Anyone?
>>>
>>> Who are you talking about? Edwin may be a troll, but you're a lot more
>>> disliked than Edwin could ever hope to become.
>>
>> What does being disliked have to do with anything... and what makes you
>> think *anyone* dislikes me? I am not saying some don't - Carroll, for
>> example, clearly loathes me, but he denies it. Do you count him as
>> disliking me or not?
>
> Geez, Snit, do you *ever* get a full night sleep? Anyway... let me draw
> you a picture of a very stupid hypocrite (that'd be you)...
Spewing insults. You disqualified the rest of your post from being read.
Any silly insult by you, obvious lie, other other sure sign of trolling is
an immediate stopper. If you want me to reply to your points you will have
to post them in an honest and honorable way.
I am the sole arbiter of how and when this applies.
Edwin
You are 100% correct.
Snit
> Mitch wrote:
>> In article <peejster01-04739...@news.isp.giganews.com>,
>> Jim Lee Jr. <peejs...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Have you connected your Windoze 2000 machine to the Net unprotected? If
>>> not, see how long it takes for it to get infected.
>>
>>
>> The problem with that is it takes the protection software to learn when
>> it gets infected -- the first time they check to see if it's infected,
>> it's going to be protected.
>>
>> Windows users simply CANNOT determine whether they are infected just by
>> checking -- there are far far too many ways and things to look for.
>> That is one of the reasons users with no protection can't meaningfully
>> make the statement they have never had a problem -- it's very unlikely
>> they could know!
>
>
> You are 100% correct.
Ditto. Claiming you know you are not infected, on XP, because you know your
system is absurd.
--
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
Edwin
> In article <b2svg.10136$2v....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
> Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> Tim Murray wrote:
>>> A while back you were downplaying virus issues,
>> No, a while back I showed how the virus problem is overstated by some,
>> mostly by those who profit from doing so.
>>
>>
>>> tidbits from the July 10 Information Week, in an article on the worst worms
>>> and viruses of all time. Your post was mostly in regard to the quantity of
>>> viruses, but nonetheless, I thought you would find this ... interesting.
>> None of that affected me, nor my employer, nor anybody I know.
>>
>> Anti-Virus: Learn it, Love it, Live it.
>
> So, because it doesn't affect You( or so you say since that can't be verified)
> it therefore doesn't affect the industry?
>
> What pompous thinking. Oops, I meant lack of thinking which is normal for you.
Why are you attributing your thoughts to me, Jimbob?
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-78C7C4....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/20/06 7:04 AM:
>
> >>>> Wow, not only does Edwin manage to avoid the question, he throws in some
> >>>> Carrollesque name calling as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> Does anyone think Edwin takes pride in his antics? Anyone?
> >>>
> >>> Who are you talking about? Edwin may be a troll, but you're a lot more
> >>> disliked than Edwin could ever hope to become.
> >>
> >> What does being disliked have to do with anything... and what makes you
> >> think *anyone* dislikes me? I am not saying some don't - Carroll, for
> >> example, clearly loathes me, but he denies it. Do you count him as
> >> disliking me or not?
> >
> > Geez, Snit, do you *ever* get a full night sleep? Anyway... let me draw
> > you a picture of a very stupid hypocrite (that'd be you)...
>
> Spewing insults.
Insults?
I proved you are a stupid hypocrite.
"You're telling Sandman that people are not defined by how others see
their actions, yet, here you are... defining me as a person who
'loathes' you (an assessment that is obviously based on my actions) when
I have clearly stated nothing of the sort."
Snip away, stupid hypocrite;)
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-817759...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/19/06 7:22 PM:
>
> >>> You really are desperate to arrive at such a conclusion based on that
> >>> reasoning.
> >>
> >> My reasoning is completely logical:
> >>
> >> A) Malware undeniably costs company's money
> >
> > If they succumb to it.
>
> I was speaking in general terms - as in floods undeniably cost companies
> money (correcting also for may grammar error). More companies, I would bet,
> are hit with malware than with floods.
Irrelevant. My recommendations are just as effective against the smaller
"trickles".
> Even if you could show that only a small number of businesses were hit with
> malware, something I doubt you could show, taking preventative measures is
> similar to having insurance - you hope you never need it but it is foolish
> for a business to go without.
My recommendations are just that...insurance. While they won't protect
in every case they cover the vast majority of them.
> For you to conclude that using logic is "desperate" is silly and
> disingenuous.
Well...that's what it is.
> > I fully acknowledge that outbreaks happen.
>
> And in the past you have even admitted that there are times when using
> malware prevention measures make sense for a company and to include in TCO
> studies, but you have failed to give any meaningful detail.
Sure I did. I said that anti-malware software is good for people who
download software from the Internet from unknown sources. You never know
when you're going to download something bad. From a business perspective
one shouldn't be downloading software from unknown sources and
installing it on their system. Thus one has to wonder if anti-malware
software is really necessary. Take a look at the list as an example. All
but one (Melissa) could have been prevented by following one of the
three no cost measures I listed below. As for Melissa...well, not sure
what could have been done to prevent it. Not much you can do about user
behavior other than education (which tends not to be that effective).
> > 2) Do you believe people, in general, should use anti-malware
> > software?
> It depends. What does it depend on? Many different things.
> > 3) Do you believe the cost of such software should be included in
> > general ROI/TCO studies?
> Again it depends based on on the same as above.
>
> > What I keep saying, and you fail to accept, is that taking a few basic, no
> > cost precautions can go a long way towards minimizing them.
>
> Even setting up non-Admin accounts takes time and has a cost associated with
> it.
It can be done when the computer is initially setup. And if the system
is setup via imaging then there's really no additional work. And any
cost with configuring and managing it is more than offset by not having
to pay and manage anti-malware software and especially so by the
protection it offers to prevent infections.
> What no-cost measures are you thinking of and under what circumstances
> would you think it fair to include for-cost measures in TCO studies.
I've already said it but I'll say it again:
1. Use the built in firewall.
2. Run as a non-privileged account.
3. Keep up to date on patches.
> In the end, Josh, you repeatedly avoid these questions,
No Snit...I repeatedly answer them...just as I have above. However at
some point I get tired of repeating myself so I stop answering them.
> just as you avoided commenting on my response to your question about when you have
> put words into other people's mouths. At least you did not lie and try to deny it.
>
> > I even applied those no cost suggestions to the list and you ignored them.
>
> Are you in reference to the post of yours in this thread which I gave a long
> and detailed response to?
You gave a long and detailed response. Unfortunately what you responded
with was stuff that I put to bed a while ago. I suggest that you get
over this need of constantly dredging up stuff from the past in an
attempt to continue discussing it. I don't know who's worse at
this...you or Steve. Now if you'd like to discuss the list then let's do
that. If not take some friendly advice and let it go.
Josh
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
> 0vMvg.132925$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 7/20/06 7:33 AM:
>
> > Mitch wrote:
> >> In article <peejster01-04739...@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> >> Jim Lee Jr. <peejs...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Have you connected your Windoze 2000 machine to the Net unprotected? If
> >>> not, see how long it takes for it to get infected.
> >>
> >>
> >> The problem with that is it takes the protection software to learn when
> >> it gets infected -- the first time they check to see if it's infected,
> >> it's going to be protected.
> >>
> >> Windows users simply CANNOT determine whether they are infected just by
> >> checking -- there are far far too many ways and things to look for.
> >> That is one of the reasons users with no protection can't meaningfully
> >> make the statement they have never had a problem -- it's very unlikely
> >> they could know!
> >
> >
> > You are 100% correct.
>
> Ditto. Claiming you know you are not infected, on XP, because you know your
> system is absurd.
Yet I was able to do it (though it was Windows 2000 instead of XP but
that's only for the pedantic) and I wasn't infected. Explain that one
Snit.
Josh
Steve Carroll
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
Here you are asking the most delusional guy in the ng to explain *your*
delusion. I fail to see how this can get any funnier;)
Snit
> In article <C0E4DEBC.55B73%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-78C7C4....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/20/06 7:04 AM:
>>
>>>>>> Wow, not only does Edwin manage to avoid the question, he throws in some
>>>>>> Carrollesque name calling as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anyone think Edwin takes pride in his antics? Anyone?
>>>>>
>>>>> Who are you talking about? Edwin may be a troll, but you're a lot more
>>>>> disliked than Edwin could ever hope to become.
>>>>
>>>> What does being disliked have to do with anything... and what makes you
>>>> think *anyone* dislikes me? I am not saying some don't - Carroll, for
>>>> example, clearly loathes me, but he denies it. Do you count him as
>>>> disliking me or not?
>>>
>>> Geez, Snit, do you *ever* get a full night sleep? Anyway... let me draw
>>> you a picture of a very stupid hypocrite (that'd be you)...
>>
>> Spewing insults.
>
> Insults?
>
> I proved you are a stupid hypocrite.
You just broke your one chance - you lied again, Steve.
At least you made it to two sentences... LOL!
If you want to hold any form of discussion with me you will *have* to be
honest and honorable - or wait for my arbitrary whim when I opt to respond
more fully to your lies. It might happen.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-F4CDE1....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/20/06 2:16 PM:
>
> > In article <C0E4DEBC.55B73%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >> noone-78C7C4....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/20/06 7:04 AM:
> >>
> >>>>>> Wow, not only does Edwin manage to avoid the question, he throws in
> >>>>>> some
> >>>>>> Carrollesque name calling as well.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Does anyone think Edwin takes pride in his antics? Anyone?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Who are you talking about? Edwin may be a troll, but you're a lot more
> >>>>> disliked than Edwin could ever hope to become.
> >>>>
> >>>> What does being disliked have to do with anything... and what makes you
> >>>> think *anyone* dislikes me? I am not saying some don't - Carroll, for
> >>>> example, clearly loathes me, but he denies it. Do you count him as
> >>>> disliking me or not?
> >>>
> >>> Geez, Snit, do you *ever* get a full night sleep? Anyway... let me draw
> >>> you a picture of a very stupid hypocrite (that'd be you)...
> >>
> >> Spewing insults.
> >
> > Insults?
> >
> > I proved you are a stupid hypocrite.
>
> You just
... proved you are a stupid hypocrite? Yes, I did.
Snit
>> And in the past you have even admitted that there are times when using
>> malware prevention measures make sense for a company and to include in TCO
>> studies, but you have failed to give any meaningful detail.
>
> Sure I did. I said that anti-malware software is good for people who
> download software from the Internet from unknown sources. You never know
> when you're going to download something bad. From a business perspective
> one shouldn't be downloading software from unknown sources and
> installing it on their system. Thus one has to wonder if anti-malware
> software is really necessary. Take a look at the list as an example. All
> but one (Melissa) could have been prevented by following one of the
> three no cost measures I listed below. As for Melissa...well, not sure
> what could have been done to prevent it. Not much you can do about user
> behavior other than education (which tends not to be that effective).
And that includes education about not downloading software.
>>> 2) Do you believe people, in general, should use anti-malware
>>> software?
>> It depends. What does it depend on? Many different things.
>>> 3) Do you believe the cost of such software should be included in
>>> general ROI/TCO studies?
>> Again it depends based on on the same as above.
>>
>>> What I keep saying, and you fail to accept, is that taking a few basic, no
>>> cost precautions can go a long way towards minimizing them.
>>
>> Even setting up non-Admin accounts takes time and has a cost associated with
>> it.
>
> It can be done when the computer is initially setup. And if the system
> is setup via imaging then there's really no additional work. And any
> cost with configuring and managing it is more than offset by not having
> to pay and manage anti-malware software and especially so by the
> protection it offers to prevent infections.
Or you could just use an OS where it is, for all intents and purposes, a
non-issue.
>> What no-cost measures are you thinking of and under what circumstances
>> would you think it fair to include for-cost measures in TCO studies.
>
> I've already said it but I'll say it again:
>
> 1. Use the built in firewall.
> 2. Run as a non-privileged account.
> 3. Keep up to date on patches.
All good advice... though #2 is not always practical. Anti-malware software
is an important part of the equation you leave out.
>> In the end, Josh, you repeatedly avoid these questions,
>
> No Snit...I repeatedly answer them...just as I have above. However at
> some point I get tired of repeating myself so I stop answering them.
OK. So in a hypothetical system where users do not explore and try to learn
you may be right about not needing anti-malware software. No argument here.
In any business which provides web access to their employees, however,
anti-malware software becomes a must. Same thing if they bring CDs etc.
from home.
>> just as you avoided commenting on my response to your question about when you
>> have put words into other people's mouths. At least you did not lie and try
>> to deny it.
>>
>>> I even applied those no cost suggestions to the list and you ignored them.
>>
>> Are you in reference to the post of yours in this thread which I gave a long
>> and detailed response to?
>
> You gave a long and detailed response. Unfortunately what you responded
> with was stuff that I put to bed a while ago. I suggest that you get
> over this need of constantly dredging up stuff from the past in an
> attempt to continue discussing it. I don't know who's worse at
> this...you or Steve. Now if you'd like to discuss the list then let's do
> that. If not take some friendly advice and let it go.
You mean the list of malware? What of interest did you want to discuss
about it?
Snit
The question is not if you were infected or not, the question was if you can
know without having any reasoned way to tell. And, of course, you cannot.
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-8AE6FF...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/20/06 3:55 PM:
>
> >> And in the past you have even admitted that there are times when using
> >> malware prevention measures make sense for a company and to include in TCO
> >> studies, but you have failed to give any meaningful detail.
> >
> > Sure I did. I said that anti-malware software is good for people who
> > download software from the Internet from unknown sources. You never know
> > when you're going to download something bad. From a business perspective
> > one shouldn't be downloading software from unknown sources and
> > installing it on their system. Thus one has to wonder if anti-malware
> > software is really necessary. Take a look at the list as an example. All
> > but one (Melissa) could have been prevented by following one of the
> > three no cost measures I listed below. As for Melissa...well, not sure
> > what could have been done to prevent it. Not much you can do about user
> > behavior other than education (which tends not to be that effective).
>
> And that includes education about not downloading software.
It does. But I repeat: Education tends to be ineffective.
> >>> 2) Do you believe people, in general, should use anti-malware
> >>> software?
> >> It depends. What does it depend on? Many different things.
> >>> 3) Do you believe the cost of such software should be included in
> >>> general ROI/TCO studies?
> >> Again it depends based on on the same as above.
> >>
> >>> What I keep saying, and you fail to accept, is that taking a few basic,
> >>> no
> >>> cost precautions can go a long way towards minimizing them.
> >>
> >> Even setting up non-Admin accounts takes time and has a cost associated
> >> with
> >> it.
> >
> > It can be done when the computer is initially setup. And if the system
> > is setup via imaging then there's really no additional work. And any
> > cost with configuring and managing it is more than offset by not having
> > to pay and manage anti-malware software and especially so by the
> > protection it offers to prevent infections.
>
> Or you could just use an OS where it is, for all intents and purposes, a
> non-issue.
Which has a different set of costs associated with it.
> >> What no-cost measures are you thinking of and under what circumstances
> >> would you think it fair to include for-cost measures in TCO studies.
> >
> > I've already said it but I'll say it again:
> >
> > 1. Use the built in firewall.
> > 2. Run as a non-privileged account.
> > 3. Keep up to date on patches.
>
> All good advice... though #2 is not always practical. Anti-malware software
> is an important part of the equation you leave out.
You asked for no-cost measures.
> >> In the end, Josh, you repeatedly avoid these questions,
> >
> > No Snit...I repeatedly answer them...just as I have above. However at
> > some point I get tired of repeating myself so I stop answering them.
>
> OK. So in a hypothetical system where users do not explore and try to learn
> you may be right about not needing anti-malware software. No argument here.
>
> In any business which provides web access to their employees, however,
> anti-malware software becomes a must. Same thing if they bring CDs etc.
> from home.
Not sure I would agree that it's a must.
> >> just as you avoided commenting on my response to your question about when
> >> you
> >> have put words into other people's mouths. At least you did not lie and
> >> try
> >> to deny it.
> >>
> >>> I even applied those no cost suggestions to the list and you ignored
> >>> them.
> >>
> >> Are you in reference to the post of yours in this thread which I gave a
> >> long
> >> and detailed response to?
> >
> > You gave a long and detailed response. Unfortunately what you responded
> > with was stuff that I put to bed a while ago. I suggest that you get
> > over this need of constantly dredging up stuff from the past in an
> > attempt to continue discussing it. I don't know who's worse at
> > this...you or Steve. Now if you'd like to discuss the list then let's do
> > that. If not take some friendly advice and let it go.
>
> You mean the list of malware? What of interest did you want to discuss
> about it?
We keep hearing about how malware costs companies billions of dollars.
This list represents the top 11 most costly malware. Of the 11 my three
recommendations would have prevented 10 of them...at no additional
expense. The one that they do not, well, there's not much you can do
about it. If my three recommendations could prevent 10 of the top 11
without additional cost why do you feel that anti-malware software
should be included in TCO studies?
Josh
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
And of course I can...because I did. You can try and spin this all you
want but the fact is that after using the system for over five years
without any anti-malware software I was able to say that I was not
infected. And when challenged I proved it.
Josh
Snit
> In article <C0E5892F.55D64%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
>> jtmckee-8AE6FF...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/20/06 3:55 PM:
>>
>>>> And in the past you have even admitted that there are times when using
>>>> malware prevention measures make sense for a company and to include in TCO
>>>> studies, but you have failed to give any meaningful detail.
>>>
>>> Sure I did. I said that anti-malware software is good for people who
>>> download software from the Internet from unknown sources. You never know
>>> when you're going to download something bad. From a business perspective
>>> one shouldn't be downloading software from unknown sources and
>>> installing it on their system. Thus one has to wonder if anti-malware
>>> software is really necessary. Take a look at the list as an example. All
>>> but one (Melissa) could have been prevented by following one of the
>>> three no cost measures I listed below. As for Melissa...well, not sure
>>> what could have been done to prevent it. Not much you can do about user
>>> behavior other than education (which tends not to be that effective).
>>
>> And that includes education about not downloading software.
>
> It does. But I repeat: Education tends to be ineffective.
I did not expect you to agree with me on this. I am pleasantly surprised.
Which is why anti-malware software is a must. If people would not do things
to bring greater risk to their computers there would be less need.
>>>>> 2) Do you believe people, in general, should use anti-malware
>>>>> software?
>>>> It depends. What does it depend on? Many different things.
>>>>> 3) Do you believe the cost of such software should be included in
>>>>> general ROI/TCO studies?
>>>> Again it depends based on on the same as above.
>>>>
>>>>> What I keep saying, and you fail to accept, is that taking a few basic,
>>>>> no
>>>>> cost precautions can go a long way towards minimizing them.
>>>>
>>>> Even setting up non-Admin accounts takes time and has a cost associated
>>>> with
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> It can be done when the computer is initially setup. And if the system
>>> is setup via imaging then there's really no additional work. And any
>>> cost with configuring and managing it is more than offset by not having
>>> to pay and manage anti-malware software and especially so by the
>>> protection it offers to prevent infections.
>>
>> Or you could just use an OS where it is, for all intents and purposes, a
>> non-issue.
>
> Which has a different set of costs associated with it.
What were you thinking of? Depends in the specifics of the needs, of
course, but in general OS X is found to do very well in every ROI/TCO study
I have been able to find... including internal ones to Intuit and several
schools.
>>>> What no-cost measures are you thinking of and under what circumstances
>>>> would you think it fair to include for-cost measures in TCO studies.
>>>
>>> I've already said it but I'll say it again:
>>>
>>> 1. Use the built in firewall.
>>> 2. Run as a non-privileged account.
>>> 3. Keep up to date on patches.
>>
>> All good advice... though #2 is not always practical. Anti-malware software
>> is an important part of the equation you leave out.
>
> You asked for no-cost measures.
Fair enough.
>>>> In the end, Josh, you repeatedly avoid these questions,
>>>
>>> No Snit...I repeatedly answer them...just as I have above. However at
>>> some point I get tired of repeating myself so I stop answering them.
>>
>> OK. So in a hypothetical system where users do not explore and try to learn
>> you may be right about not needing anti-malware software. No argument here.
>>
>> In any business which provides web access to their employees, however,
>> anti-malware software becomes a must. Same thing if they bring CDs etc.
>> from home.
>
> Not sure I would agree that it's a must.
OK, a very, very wise thing with strong likelihood of dire consequences if
not done. :)
>>>> just as you avoided commenting on my response to your question about when
>>>> you have put words into other people's mouths. At least you did not lie
>>>> and try to deny it.
>>>>
>>>>> I even applied those no cost suggestions to the list and you ignored them.
>>>>>
>>>> Are you in reference to the post of yours in this thread which I gave a
>>>> long and detailed response to?
>>>>
>>> You gave a long and detailed response. Unfortunately what you responded with
>>> was stuff that I put to bed a while ago. I suggest that you get over this
>>> need of constantly dredging up stuff from the past in an attempt to continue
>>> discussing it. I don't know who's worse at this...you or Steve. Now if you'd
>>> like to discuss the list then let's do that. If not take some friendly
>>> advice and let it go.
>>>
>> You mean the list of malware? What of interest did you want to discuss about
>> it?
>
> We keep hearing about how malware costs companies billions of dollars.
As opposed to how it costs OS X users zilch (well, directly).
> This list represents the top 11 most costly malware. Of the 11 my three
> recommendations would have prevented 10 of them...at no additional
> expense.
Minimal.. depending on the circumstances.
> The one that they do not, well, there's not much you can do about it. If my
> three recommendations could prevent 10 of the top 11 without additional cost
> why do you feel that anti-malware software should be included in TCO studies?
For the reasons we agreed to at the top of the post:
--------
>>>> And in the past you have even admitted that there are times when using
>>>> malware prevention measures make sense for a company and to include in TCO
>>>> studies, but you have failed to give any meaningful detail.
>>>
>>> Sure I did. I said that anti-malware software is good for people who
>>> download software from the Internet from unknown sources. You never know
>>> when you're going to download something bad. From a business perspective
>>> one shouldn't be downloading software from unknown sources and
>>> installing it on their system. Thus one has to wonder if anti-malware
>>> software is really necessary. Take a look at the list as an example. All
>>> but one (Melissa) could have been prevented by following one of the
>>> three no cost measures I listed below. As for Melissa...well, not sure
>>> what could have been done to prevent it. Not much you can do about user
>>> behavior other than education (which tends not to be that effective).
>>
>> And that includes education about not downloading software.
>
> It does. But I repeat: Education tends to be ineffective.
I did not expect you to agree with me on this. I am pleasantly surprised.
Which is why anti-malware software is a must. If people would not do things
to bring greater risk to their computers there would be less need.
--------
Snit
>>>> Ditto. Claiming you know you are not infected, on XP, because you know
>>>> your system is absurd.
>>>
>>> Yet I was able to do it (though it was Windows 2000 instead of XP but
>>> that's only for the pedantic) and I wasn't infected. Explain that one
>>> Snit.
>>
>> The question is not if you were infected or not, the question was if you can
>> know without having any reasoned way to tell. And, of course, you cannot.
>
> And of course I can...because I did.
Your logic is flawed. If Joe Blow had lots of promiscuous unprotected sex
and then told you he knew he did not have HIV because he knows his body,
would you conclude he really did have a way of knowing if a test came back
negative?
> You can try and spin this all you want but the fact is that after using the
> system for over five years without any anti-malware software I was able to say
> that I was not infected. And when challenged I proved it.
Since some people have promiscuous unprotected sex and do not get HIV, do
you think promiscuous unprotected is safe? I do not.
When you used this reasoning in the past I told you it was the reasoning of
a teen - and it is. This may offend you, but that is typical teen "can't
happen to me" thinking.
Mitch
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
> > Okay; so answer my challenge to it -- how did you determine that you
> > had no infections, no malware, and no hidden files doing ANY KIND of
> > unwanted activity?
>
> Already done.
I ask HOW, and all you answer is 'already done'?
> > Are you so familiar with Windows that you actually know the path and
> > size and purpose of EVERY FILE EVERYWHERE?
>
> No.
In order to find such files, and without the help of any software
protection, this would seem to be a necessary skill.
> > > > That is one of the reasons users with no protection can't meaningfully
> > > > make the statement they have never had a problem -- it's very unlikely
> > > > they could know!
> > >
> > > I've made it and supported it.
> > No, you've made the claim, but I don't think you have ever done
> > ANYTHING to support that you were correct asserting your complete and
> > total lack of any kind of trouble at all over many years of operation
> > with no attention, no checking, no protection, and no system
> > reinstalls.
>
> Your ignorance is not my failure.
I wrote that you have not supported your assertion. What I know isn't
involved in this discussion.
Please understand that I haven't said you have to be wrong -- I'm
giving you a lot of room to explain how you can know what you claim.
Can you only reply with insults?
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-519967...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/20/06 7:44 PM:
>
> >>>> Ditto. Claiming you know you are not infected, on XP, because you know
> >>>> your system is absurd.
> >>>
> >>> Yet I was able to do it (though it was Windows 2000 instead of XP but
> >>> that's only for the pedantic) and I wasn't infected. Explain that one
> >>> Snit.
> >>
> >> The question is not if you were infected or not, the question was if you
> >> can
> >> know without having any reasoned way to tell. And, of course, you cannot.
> >
> > And of course I can...because I did.
>
> Your logic is flawed.
No, my logic is just fine. As evidenced by my having proven my claim
that my systems were malware free despite the fact that I had been using
them regularly on the Internet for over five years without any form of
anti-malware software.
> If Joe Blow had lots of promiscuous unprotected sex and then told you he knew
> he did not have HIV because he knows his body, would you conclude he really
> did have a way of knowing if a test came back negative?
The difference is that your scenario assumes no protection. My situation
employed protection. Therefore they're not analogous.
> > You can try and spin this all you want but the fact is that after using the
> > system for over five years without any anti-malware software I was able to
> > say
> > that I was not infected. And when challenged I proved it.
>
> Since some people have promiscuous unprotected sex and do not get HIV, do
> you think promiscuous unprotected is safe? I do not.
No. Nor do I think using an unprotected Windows system is very safe
either. The problem is you seem to define protection to be only
anti-malware software.
> When you used this reasoning in the past I told you it was the reasoning of
> a teen - and it is. This may offend you, but that is typical teen "can't
> happen to me" thinking.
Not at all. I know it could happen to me if I wasn't protecting my
computer. But since I am protecting my computer, just not with
anti-malware software, I am able to confidently say that my risk is
considerably lower than not employing any protection. I may even be
willing to go so far as to say that I'm at lower risk than using only
anti-malware software as protection.
Josh
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
I don't think I consider it a must.
> If people would not do things to bring greater risk to their computers there
> would be less need.
>
> >>>>> 2) Do you believe people, in general, should use anti-malware
> >>>>> software?
> >>>> It depends. What does it depend on? Many different things.
> >>>>> 3) Do you believe the cost of such software should be included in
> >>>>> general ROI/TCO studies?
> >>>> Again it depends based on on the same as above.
> >>>>
> >>>>> What I keep saying, and you fail to accept, is that taking a few basic,
> >>>>> no
> >>>>> cost precautions can go a long way towards minimizing them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Even setting up non-Admin accounts takes time and has a cost associated
> >>>> with
> >>>> it.
> >>>
> >>> It can be done when the computer is initially setup. And if the system
> >>> is setup via imaging then there's really no additional work. And any
> >>> cost with configuring and managing it is more than offset by not having
> >>> to pay and manage anti-malware software and especially so by the
> >>> protection it offers to prevent infections.
> >>
> >> Or you could just use an OS where it is, for all intents and purposes, a
> >> non-issue.
> >
> > Which has a different set of costs associated with it.
>
> What were you thinking of?
Lack of software for one.
> Depends in the specifics of the needs, of course, but in general OS X is
> found to do very well in every ROI/TCO study I have been able to find...
> including internal ones to Intuit and several schools.
I've already debunked these ROI/TCO studies. Unless you have something
new you're just repeating the same, tired, wrong song.
> >>>> What no-cost measures are you thinking of and under what circumstances
> >>>> would you think it fair to include for-cost measures in TCO studies.
> >>>
> >>> I've already said it but I'll say it again:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Use the built in firewall.
> >>> 2. Run as a non-privileged account.
> >>> 3. Keep up to date on patches.
> >>
> >> All good advice... though #2 is not always practical. Anti-malware
> >> software
> >> is an important part of the equation you leave out.
> >
> > You asked for no-cost measures.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> >>>> In the end, Josh, you repeatedly avoid these questions,
> >>>
> >>> No Snit...I repeatedly answer them...just as I have above. However at
> >>> some point I get tired of repeating myself so I stop answering them.
> >>
> >> OK. So in a hypothetical system where users do not explore and try to
> >> learn
> >> you may be right about not needing anti-malware software. No argument
> >> here.
> >>
> >> In any business which provides web access to their employees, however,
> >> anti-malware software becomes a must. Same thing if they bring CDs etc.
> >> from home.
> >
> > Not sure I would agree that it's a must.
>
> OK, a very, very wise thing with strong likelihood of dire consequences if
> not done. :)
I don't think that I would agree with this either. Have you actually sat
back and looked at this list and given your argument some thought?
There's a glaring weakness in it.
> >>>> just as you avoided commenting on my response to your question about
> >>>> when
> >>>> you have put words into other people's mouths. At least you did not lie
> >>>> and try to deny it.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I even applied those no cost suggestions to the list and you ignored
> >>>>> them.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Are you in reference to the post of yours in this thread which I gave a
> >>>> long and detailed response to?
> >>>>
> >>> You gave a long and detailed response. Unfortunately what you responded
> >>> with
> >>> was stuff that I put to bed a while ago. I suggest that you get over this
> >>> need of constantly dredging up stuff from the past in an attempt to
> >>> continue
> >>> discussing it. I don't know who's worse at this...you or Steve. Now if
> >>> you'd
> >>> like to discuss the list then let's do that. If not take some friendly
> >>> advice and let it go.
> >>>
> >> You mean the list of malware? What of interest did you want to discuss
> >> about
> >> it?
> >
> > We keep hearing about how malware costs companies billions of dollars.
>
> As opposed to how it costs OS X users zilch (well, directly).
A few simple, no cost changes and it wouldn't have cost Windows users
anything either.
> > This list represents the top 11 most costly malware. Of the 11 my three
> > recommendations would have prevented 10 of them...at no additional
> > expense.
>
> Minimal.. depending on the circumstances.
Please elaborate.
> > The one that they do not, well, there's not much you can do about it. If my
> > three recommendations could prevent 10 of the top 11 without additional
> > cost why do you feel that anti-malware software should be included in TCO
> > studies?
>
> For the reasons we agreed to at the top of the post:
My three recommendations could prevent the reason that we "agreed" to.
So why include the anti-malware cost in a TCO study? It's unnecessary.
Josh
Mitch
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
> Yet I was able to do it (though it was Windows 2000 instead of XP but
> that's only for the pedantic) and I wasn't infected. Explain that one
> Snit.
How can anyone explain?
You seem to have to decided you weren't affected or infected by
anything at any time without actually doing anything to learn that.
You won't tell anyone how you thought you knew this.
You haven't given any hint of your methods for determination, except
that you never use any protective tools.
It isn't anyone else's problem to explain any of this -- until you can
give some hint of how you learned that, your claim means NOTHING, and
can only be ignored.
Josh McKee
Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
> In article <jtmckee-25A100...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
>
> > Yet I was able to do it (though it was Windows 2000 instead of XP but
> > that's only for the pedantic) and I wasn't infected. Explain that one
> > Snit.
>
>
> How can anyone explain?
> You seem to have to decided you weren't affected or infected by
> anything at any time without actually doing anything to learn that.
Yes, I did. I ran three pieces of anti-malware software (Grisoft AVG,
LavaSoft AdAware, and Spybot Search and Destroy) at Snit's request. The
system came up clean. The fact that you're ignorant of this discussion
is not my failing.
> You won't tell anyone how you thought you knew this.
> You haven't given any hint of your methods for determination, except
> that you never use any protective tools.
Malware has a lot of the same characteristics. One of which is that they
all try to start up automatically when the system starts. Checking the
various locations where Windows starts programs running is one way to
ascertain if you've been infected. Another method is knowing what is
normally running on your system. Again the fact that you lack a
technical understanding of your system does not mean that others do not.
> It isn't anyone else's problem to explain any of this
Yes, it is. I keep hearing that one cannot properly determine if their
system is infected without anti-malware software. Yet that's exactly
what I did. Therefore you need to explain how I could not have done this
when in fact I did do this.
> -- until you can give some hint of how you learned that, your claim
> means NOTHING, and can only be ignored.
Since I've already done that I can only assume that I will be ignored
either way.
Josh
Snit
on 7/22/06 9:33 PM:
Josh is displaying what some call "it can't happen to me" thinking.
He did not have (significant) malware that we know of (he did have some
Elexa related material that some consider malware). Josh interprets this to
mean that he is immune, just as a promiscuous teen might conclude he/she is
immune from STDs if one set of tests comes up negative.
Here is some info on that form of thinking (dealing with STDs and not
computer viruses): <http://snipurl.com/tomo>.
--
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
Edwin
> In article <2sNvg.132944$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>> In article <b2svg.10136$2v....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
>>> Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim Murray wrote:
>>>>> A while back you were downplaying virus issues,
>>>> No, a while back I showed how the virus problem is overstated by some,
>>>> mostly by those who profit from doing so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> so I thought I'd snip a few
>>>>> tidbits from the July 10 Information Week, in an article on the worst
>>>>> worms
>>>>> and viruses of all time. Your post was mostly in regard to the quantity
>>>>> of
>>>>> viruses, but nonetheless, I thought you would find this ... interesting.
>> [snip]
>>>> None of that affected me, nor my employer, nor anybody I know.
>>>>
>>>> Anti-Virus: Learn it, Love it, Live it.
>>> So, because it doesn't affect You( or so you say since that can't be
>>> verified)
>>> it therefore doesn't affect the industry?
>>>
>>> What pompous thinking. Oops, I meant lack of thinking which is normal for
>>> you.
>> Why are you attributing your thoughts to me, Jimbob?
>
You're projecting again.
> I was describing you.
No, you were attributing your thoughts to me.
--
"But SunOS was just a purchased OS. Like Apple,
Sun purchased and [sic] OS and then developed it. No more."
-- Alan "Wrong Again" Baker
Edwin
As much as I hate to be in the same boat with Snit, I must agree with
him. There are thousands of files making up Windows. There's no way
you can tell by looking, which belong, and which don't, or which amongst
them is corrupted.
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Mitch" <mi...@hawaii.rr> stated in post 220720061833130677%mi...@hawaii.rr
> on 7/22/06 9:33 PM:
>
> > In article <jtmckee-25A100...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> > Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Yet I was able to do it (though it was Windows 2000 instead of XP but
> >> that's only for the pedantic) and I wasn't infected. Explain that one
> >> Snit.
> >
> >
> > How can anyone explain?
> > You seem to have to decided you weren't affected or infected by
> > anything at any time without actually doing anything to learn that.
> > You won't tell anyone how you thought you knew this.
> > You haven't given any hint of your methods for determination, except
> > that you never use any protective tools.
> >
> > It isn't anyone else's problem to explain any of this -- until you can
> > give some hint of how you learned that, your claim means NOTHING, and
> > can only be ignored.
>
> Josh is displaying what some call "it can't happen to me" thinking.
And what leads you to that erroneous conclusion.
> He did not have (significant) malware that we know of (he did have some
> Elexa related material that some consider malware).
Just as some radicals think that cookies are malware. Doesn't make it
so. Your continued insistence on this shows how desperate you are.
Josh
Edwin
> In article <220720061833130677%mi...@hawaii.rr>,
> Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
>
>> In article <jtmckee-25A100...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>> Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Yet I was able to do it (though it was Windows 2000 instead of XP but
>>> that's only for the pedantic) and I wasn't infected. Explain that one
>>> Snit.
>>
>> How can anyone explain?
>> You seem to have to decided you weren't affected or infected by
>> anything at any time without actually doing anything to learn that.
>
> Yes, I did. I ran three pieces of anti-malware software (Grisoft AVG,
> LavaSoft AdAware, and Spybot Search and Destroy) at Snit's request. The
> system came up clean. The fact that you're ignorant of this discussion
> is not my failing.
But the subject of this thread is virus damage. Malware is not the
same thing as a virus.
>> You won't tell anyone how you thought you knew this.
>> You haven't given any hint of your methods for determination, except
>> that you never use any protective tools.
>
> Malware has a lot of the same characteristics. One of which is that they
> all try to start up automatically when the system starts. Checking the
> various locations where Windows starts programs running is one way to
> ascertain if you've been infected. Another method is knowing what is
> normally running on your system. Again the fact that you lack a
> technical understanding of your system does not mean that others do not.
Most malware, besides tracking cookies, is actually useful software that
the user willingly installs. What makes it bad is that it performs
hidden functions that it didn't tell the user it would do.
>> It isn't anyone else's problem to explain any of this
>
> Yes, it is. I keep hearing that one cannot properly determine if their
> system is infected without anti-malware software. Yet that's exactly
> what I did. Therefore you need to explain how I could not have done this
> when in fact I did do this.
You keep confusing anti-virus with anti-malware. Avoiding malware
isn't that hard. Just don't download any freebie software.
Tracking cookies are harder to avoid without anti-Malware programs.
>> -- until you can give some hint of how you learned that, your claim
>> means NOTHING, and can only be ignored.
>
> Since I've already done that I can only assume that I will be ignored
> either way.
Please tell me how to detect viruses without anti-virus software.
Josh McKee
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
But one can make an informed determination. Since the systems are behind
a hardware firewall (2000 doesn't have it's own), the systems are kept
up to date with patches, and I run as a non-privileged user it's very
unlikely that the system has been compromised by malware. The firewall
prevents malware from connecting to services on the system. Therefore
they cannot exploit services that have elevated privileges. Patching
removes known holes. And running as a non-privileged user keeps the
system from being compromised. Non-privileged users cannot write to
system (and usually in the case of Windows, other applications) files.
Therefore they cannot be corrupted. Nor can they write to system wide
registry keys. Given these three things it's very unlikely that the
system has been compromised. Since most malware attempts to change
system settings they will be unable to do so. And since error correction
isn't top on most malware authors lists of things to include the malware
itself is likely to fail. For that malware that does work in user space
the best it can do is start up when I log in. Thus logging in as the
administrator allows me to remove any malware that might have found it's
way into the user account. Also knowing how the system starts up and
what processes are normally running allows me to perform a quick check
without validating every file. Are there things in the startup process
that shouldn't be there? Are there things running that shouldn't be
there. Mind you I understand that normal files can be altered...but only
if you're running as a privileged user. As a non-privileged user the
system files are highly unlikely to be modified. Given all this I think
my argument is sound. And I've proven it. And it's been much more
effective than anti-malware software which is a reactive tool. Mine are
proactive. With all of Snit's hoopla and hollering one thing remains
clear: Anti-malware doesn't really work. After all I can assure you that
many companies that were hit by one (or more) of the top eleven were
using anti-malware software. And they still got hit. I doubt many, save
for the possible exception of Melissa, were using my recommendations.
Why do I know this? Because an analysis of the malware shows that it
would have been stopped dead in its tracks through one of the three
recommendations. Until malware starts becoming user land only I'll take
my chances with my suggestions over anti-malware any day. Anti-malware
software has proven to be effective only after the malware has done its
damage...as evidenced by the top eleven list.
Josh
Snit
You can be in the same boat, you just can't be the chef. :)
Snit
> In article <C0E9CCA3.560B2%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Mitch" <mi...@hawaii.rr> stated in post 220720061833130677%mi...@hawaii.rr
>> on 7/22/06 9:33 PM:
>>
>>> In article <jtmckee-25A100...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>>> Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yet I was able to do it (though it was Windows 2000 instead of XP but
>>>> that's only for the pedantic) and I wasn't infected. Explain that one
>>>> Snit.
>>>
>>>
>>> How can anyone explain?
>>> You seem to have to decided you weren't affected or infected by
>>> anything at any time without actually doing anything to learn that.
>>> You won't tell anyone how you thought you knew this.
>>> You haven't given any hint of your methods for determination, except
>>> that you never use any protective tools.
>>>
>>> It isn't anyone else's problem to explain any of this -- until you can
>>> give some hint of how you learned that, your claim means NOTHING, and
>>> can only be ignored.
>>
>> Josh is displaying what some call "it can't happen to me" thinking.
>
> And what leads you to that erroneous conclusion.
Your comments. If you did not mean what you have repeatedly stated then my
conclusion just may be erroneous. Such is life: when you repeatedly claim
you knew you were not infected and your "evidence" is that you had some
tests come up negative then I will continue to take you at your word.
>> He did not have (significant) malware that we know of (he did have some
>> Elexa related material that some consider malware).
>
> Just as some radicals think that cookies are malware. Doesn't make it
> so. Your continued insistence on this shows how desperate you are.
You are babbling.
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-13E395...@netnews.comcast.net on 7/24/06 12:18 PM:
>
> > In article <C0E9CCA3.560B2%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Mitch" <mi...@hawaii.rr> stated in post 220720061833130677%mi...@hawaii.rr
> >> on 7/22/06 9:33 PM:
> >>
> >>> In article <jtmckee-25A100...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> >>> Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Yet I was able to do it (though it was Windows 2000 instead of XP but
> >>>> that's only for the pedantic) and I wasn't infected. Explain that one
> >>>> Snit.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> How can anyone explain?
> >>> You seem to have to decided you weren't affected or infected by
> >>> anything at any time without actually doing anything to learn that.
> >>> You won't tell anyone how you thought you knew this.
> >>> You haven't given any hint of your methods for determination, except
> >>> that you never use any protective tools.
> >>>
> >>> It isn't anyone else's problem to explain any of this -- until you can
> >>> give some hint of how you learned that, your claim means NOTHING, and
> >>> can only be ignored.
> >>
> >> Josh is displaying what some call "it can't happen to me" thinking.
> >
> > And what leads you to that erroneous conclusion.
>
> Your comments.
Specifically which ones?
> If you did not mean what you have repeatedly stated then my conclusion just may
> be erroneous.
Your conclusion is definitely in error.
> Such is life: when you repeatedly claim you knew you were not infected and your
> "evidence" is that you had some tests come up negative then I will continue to
> take you at your word.
Taking my word is always the best route. It makes you look less foolish.
> >> He did not have (significant) malware that we know of (he did have some
> >> Elexa related material that some consider malware).
> >
> > Just as some radicals think that cookies are malware. Doesn't make it
> > so. Your continued insistence on this shows how desperate you are.
>
> You are babbling.
How so?
Josh
Josh McKee
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> Josh McKee wrote:
> > In article <220720061833130677%mi...@hawaii.rr>,
> > Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <jtmckee-25A100...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> >> Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yet I was able to do it (though it was Windows 2000 instead of XP but
> >>> that's only for the pedantic) and I wasn't infected. Explain that one
> >>> Snit.
> >>
> >> How can anyone explain?
> >> You seem to have to decided you weren't affected or infected by
> >> anything at any time without actually doing anything to learn that.
> >
> > Yes, I did. I ran three pieces of anti-malware software (Grisoft AVG,
> > LavaSoft AdAware, and Spybot Search and Destroy) at Snit's request. The
> > system came up clean. The fact that you're ignorant of this discussion
> > is not my failing.
>
> But the subject of this thread is virus damage. Malware is not the
> same thing as a virus.
The term "malware" encompasses viruses.
Easy...as I mentioned earlier: Know what's running on your system. If
you see something that you're unfamiliar with then investigate. Check
the various startup methods to see if anything unusual appears. Again if
you don't recognize something investigate. If, as I suggest, you do not
use a privileged account it's very unlikely that you'll find anything. I
know this because I've been living it for over five years.
Josh
Snit
When you stop spewing such silliness I shan't claim you are.
"I know this because I've been living it for over five years."
I am sure I could find other quotes of yours in a similar vain.
>>>> He did not have (significant) malware that we know of (he did have some
>>>> Elexa related material that some consider malware).
>>>
>>> Just as some radicals think that cookies are malware. Doesn't make it
>>> so. Your continued insistence on this shows how desperate you are.
>>
>> You are babbling.
>
> How so?
With ease, it seems. :)
--
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Why do you consider reality silly?
> "I know this because I've been living it for over five years."
>
> I am sure I could find other quotes of yours in a similar vain.
>
> >>>> He did not have (significant) malware that we know of (he did have some
> >>>> Elexa related material that some consider malware).
> >>>
> >>> Just as some radicals think that cookies are malware. Doesn't make it
> >>> so. Your continued insistence on this shows how desperate you are.
> >>
> >> You are babbling.
> >
> > How so?
>
> With ease, it seems. :)
You failed to provide any kind of meaningful information in your
response.
Josh
Snit
You are now sinking to the all to common trolling whine of "why do you
consider reality silly". Your question has an absurd straw man as a
premise.
Bottom line: you have repeatedly stated your evidence for your methods of
malware prevention working is that so far you have not found evidence of
significant malware on your system; a form of "logic" very similar to a teen
saying his form of STD prevention works because he has not found evidence of
any significant STD.
Your sinking to absurd straw men does not make your position stronger.
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Can you elaborate on this "strawman" that's in your mind?
> Bottom line: you have repeatedly stated your evidence for your methods of
> malware prevention working is that so far you have not found evidence of
> significant malware on your system;
That in addition to a thorough understanding of how Windows works. What
issue do you have with this?
> a form of "logic" very similar to a teen saying his form of STD prevention works
> because he has not found evidence of any significant STD.
And how would you evaluate the effectiveness?
> Your sinking to absurd straw men does not make your position stronger.
Nothing absurd about it.
Josh
Snit
>>>>>> You are babbling.
>>>>>
>>>>> How so?
>>>>
>>>> With ease, it seems. :)
>>>
>>> You failed to provide any kind of meaningful information in your
>>> response.
>>>
>>> Josh
>>
>> You are now sinking to the all to common trolling whine of "why do you
>> consider reality silly". Your question has an absurd straw man as a
>> premise.
>
> Can you elaborate on this "strawman" that's in your mind?
You and your silly premises... your question implies that *your* absurd
straw man is *only* in my mind. So to answer your question - *can* I
elaborate on your straw man... sure, I *can*, but instead I am going to
simply point out your trolling is obnoxious.
Again, the point here is that you have repeatedly claimed that since you do
not know of any instance of significant infection on your machine this means
you are immune. Your claim is absurd. No matter how many straw men you
spew, Josh, you cannot make your claim become any less absurd, though you
may be able to add non-absurd claims to it.
Instead of even trying, though, you keep spewing asinine questions with
dishonest premises / implications.
>
>> Bottom line: you have repeatedly stated your evidence for your methods of
>> malware prevention working is that so far you have not found evidence of
>> significant malware on your system;
>
> That in addition to a thorough understanding of how Windows works. What
> issue do you have with this?
The fact that you want me to trust you based on such a claim over all other
available evidence: all known relevant expert opinions, personal experience,
and the stories of many, many other people.
Malware infections are a real and present danger to anyone who runs XP,
especially if they do so without malware protection tools. You simply are
not going to convince me otherwise - not without solid reason and data,
anyway... and not without explaining why all of the other data points to a
different conclusion.
>> a form of "logic" very similar to a teen saying his form of STD prevention
>> works because he has not found evidence of any significant STD.
>
> And how would you evaluate the effectiveness?
Using a sample size of larger than one, for a start. Making sure there is
no solid contrary information, as their is with your claims... that would
also be a big step in the right direction.
>> Your sinking to absurd straw men does not make your position stronger.
>
> Nothing absurd about it.
You can babble all you want and spew all the absurd straw men you want but
that will not make XP any less prone to malware. It may upset you that I
say so, but that is your problem, not mine.
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-ABE5A5...@netnews.comcast.net on 7/26/06 3:20 PM:
>
> >>>>>> You are babbling.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How so?
> >>>>
> >>>> With ease, it seems. :)
> >>>
> >>> You failed to provide any kind of meaningful information in your
> >>> response.
> >>>
> >>> Josh
> >>
> >> You are now sinking to the all to common trolling whine of "why do you
> >> consider reality silly". Your question has an absurd straw man as a
> >> premise.
> >
> > Can you elaborate on this "strawman" that's in your mind?
>
> You and your silly premises... your question implies that *your* absurd
> straw man is *only* in my mind.
I have no strawman so therefore it has to be in your mind.
> So to answer your question - *can* I elaborate on your straw man... sure, I
> *can*, but instead I am going to simply point out your trolling is obnoxious.
What is obnoxious are your posts.
> Again, the point here is that you have repeatedly claimed that since you do
> not know of any instance of significant infection on your machine this means
> you are immune.
And right here is your problem. I have never claimed that I am immune.
> Your claim is absurd.
I would agree if I had actually made such a claim.
Josh
Snit
Then we are in agreement - you are not immune from malware. As such, and
with the prevalence of malware on XP, most XP users would be wise to use
anti-malware software and, of course, such software should be considered in
any honest TCO/ROI comparisons. Such software, of course, is - at least for
now - a non-issue on OS X, though that could change in the future.
Somewhere in there, of course, you will get lost. When questioned on it you
will run from the discussion and spew straw men, absurd questions, trolling
accusations, etc. I do wish you would stop acting so.
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
We have always been in agreement on this.
> As such, and with the prevalence of malware on XP, most XP users would be wise
> to use anti-malware software
Here is where we begin to diverge.
> and, of course, such software should be considered in any honest TCO/ROI
> comparisons.
Why include something that's unnecessary?
> Such software, of course, is - at least for now - a non-issue on OS X, though
> that could change in the future.
Correct. And for all intents and purposes it's a non-issue for my
Windows systems too.
> Somewhere in there, of course, you will get lost. When questioned on it you
> will run from the discussion and spew straw men, absurd questions, trolling
> accusations, etc. I do wish you would stop acting so.
You're the one who was lost. It wasn't until I showed you the way that
you're just now starting to get it.
Josh
Snit
>> Then we are in agreement - you are not immune from malware.
>>
> We have always been in agreement on this.
Well, you say you are not immune but then repeatedly imply you are.
>
>> As such, and with the prevalence of malware on XP, most XP users would be
>> wise to use anti-malware software
>>
> Here is where we begin to diverge.
Oh well. So you are wrong. I can deal with that.
>> and, of course, such software should be considered in any honest TCO/ROI
>> comparisons.
>>
> Why include something that's unnecessary?
Why ask questions with premises that are silly? Please stop. You are not
immune. Deal with it... and by dealing with it, of course, I mean take
reasoned measured such as using anti-malware software.
So we both agree you are not immune, but you want to bury your head in the
sand after that. Whatever.
>> Such software, of course, is - at least for now - a non-issue on OS X, though
>> that could change in the future.
>>
> Correct. And for all intents and purposes it's a non-issue for my Windows
> systems too.
Yeah, you are essentially immune. Oh wait... damn, what was your position
again?
Face it, Josh, you are not immune. Malware *is* an issue on XP. You can
deny this, but you have no support other than that which the promiscuous
teen uses. So what? So you can spew immature claims. OK, I get that. Can
we move on from that or do you want to keep obsessing over your immaturity?
>> Somewhere in there, of course, you will get lost. When questioned on it you
>> will run from the discussion and spew straw men, absurd questions, trolling
>> accusations, etc. I do wish you would stop acting so.
>>
> You're the one who was lost. It wasn't until I showed you the way that you're
> just now starting to get it.
You are babbling. Deal with the fact you are not immune.
I am curious, though, what it is you think you showed me? You jumped on the
band wagon of reasoned advice for malware protection but then denied much of
the advice was needed.
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-AAF815...@netnews.comcast.net on 7/26/06 6:11 PM:
>
> >> Then we are in agreement - you are not immune from malware.
> >>
> > We have always been in agreement on this.
>
> Well, you say you are not immune but then repeatedly imply you are.
Where am I doing that?
> >> As such, and with the prevalence of malware on XP, most XP users would be
> >> wise to use anti-malware software
> >>
> > Here is where we begin to diverge.
>
> Oh well. So you are wrong. I can deal with that.
That's one unqualified persons opinion.
> >> and, of course, such software should be considered in any honest TCO/ROI
> >> comparisons.
> >>
> > Why include something that's unnecessary?
>
> Why ask questions with premises that are silly?
What's silly about it?
> Please stop.
I cannot stop something that I've not begun.
> You are not immune.
We've already agreed that I'm not. So why are you building a strawman?
> Deal with it... and by dealing with it, of course, I mean take reasoned
> measured such as using anti-malware software.
I am taking reasoned measures. And they don't include anti-malware
software. Anti-malware software is not the panacea that you're making it
out to be. I noticed that you've ignored the post I made titled "One for
Snit" that discusses the ineffectiveness of anti-malware software. Why
is that?
> So we both agree you are not immune, but you want to bury your head in the
> sand after that. Whatever.
How am I burying my head? Because I don't agree with one of your
recommendations? That's not burying my head in the sand Snit. That's
having a difference of opinion. And since my recommendations would have
prevented all but one of the top eleven pieces of malware, compared to
your recommendation which didn't prevent even one of them, I think I've
demonstrated that I am quite qualified to comment on this subject. You,
OTOH, are parroting the industry line in attempt to think you know what
you're talking about.
> >> Such software, of course, is - at least for now - a non-issue on OS X,
> >> though
> >> that could change in the future.
> >>
> > Correct. And for all intents and purposes it's a non-issue for my Windows
> > systems too.
>
> Yeah, you are essentially immune. Oh wait... damn, what was your position
> again?
It's not more saying I'm immune as you are saying a system is immune by
utilizing anti-malware software.
You're arguments have gotten pretty confrontational. A sure sign that
you're getting your ass whipped.
Josh
Snit
You are babbling and obfuscating again. Here are the facts:
1) XP users are not only *not* immune to malware, they are at a much,
much greater risk of malware than are OS X users.
2) It is foolish to not include anti-malware software for XP in TCO/ROI
studies.
3) When you whine that you are not at any significant risk because you
did one set of test that only showed non-severe malware, at least
that you will admit to, you are using the logic of a sexually
promiscuous teen who insists he is not at risk because he tested
negative of any major STD.
4) Even if it really, really pisses you off, which it clearly does, #3
is *still* true. It will be true no matter how many straw men you
fling about, how "confrontational" you find reality it be, how
insulted you feel or insulting you get.
5) XP users are not immune from malware. This is true no matter how many
times you insinuate that they are (well, that Win2K users are).
Oh, and you snipped the following:
-----
> You're the one who was lost. It wasn't until I showed you the way that you're
> just now starting to get it.
You are babbling. Deal with the fact you are not immune.
I am curious, though, what it is you think you showed me? You jumped on the
band wagon of reasoned advice for malware protection but then denied much of
the advice was needed.
-----
So what was it you thought you showed me, Josh? That you can be an immature
whining troll? OK... you did show me that. Anything else?
--
€ Professionals are not beginners in their field
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are web design applications
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Victory is mine. This last post of yours confirmed it. Lesson for you
Snit: Don't go against me if you don't want to look the fool.
Josh
Snit
>> You are babbling and obfuscating again.
>
> Victory is mine. This last post of yours confirmed it. Lesson for you
> Snit: Don't go against me if you don't want to look the fool.
While it may very well be true that simply talking to you is foolish,
especially on this issue where you act so immature, you simply have not been
able to alter the following facts that you repeatedly run from:
--
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-49D839...@netnews.comcast.net on 7/26/06 6:48 PM:
>
> >> You are babbling and obfuscating again.
> >
> > Victory is mine. This last post of yours confirmed it. Lesson for you
> > Snit: Don't go against me if you don't want to look the fool.
>
> While it may very well be true that simply talking to you is foolish,
> especially on this issue where you act so immature, you simply have not been
> able to alter the following facts that you repeatedly run from
The best you can do is respond with insults and strawmen. How about
addressing the issues that I've raised? I won't hold my breath.
Josh
Snit
What relevant issue do you believe is not fully responded to, below:
1) XP users are not only *not* immune to malware, they are at a much,
much greater risk of malware than are OS X users.
2) It is foolish to not include anti-malware software for XP in TCO/ROI
studies. It is foolish for home or business XP users to not use
anti-malware software. This is upheld by every expert opinion on the
subject that has ever been presented to CSMA, by personal experience,
and by reported experiences of many, many people in CSMA and elsewhere.
It is contradicted by *nothing* of any value.
3) When you whine that you are not at any significant risk because you
did one set of test that only showed non-severe malware, at least
that you will admit to, you are using the logic of a sexually
promiscuous teen who insists he is not at risk because he tested
negative of any major STD.
4) Even if it really, really pisses you off, which it clearly does, #3
is *still* true. It will be true no matter how many straw men you
fling about, how "confrontational" you find reality it be, how
insulted you feel or insulting you get.
5) XP users are not immune from malware. This is true no matter how many
times you insinuate that they are (well, that Win2K users are).
Oh, and you snipped the following:
-----
> You're the one who was lost. It wasn't until I showed you the way that you're
> just now starting to get it.
You are babbling. Deal with the fact you are not immune.
I am curious, though, what it is you think you showed me? You jumped on the
band wagon of reasoned advice for malware protection but then denied much of
the advice was needed.
-----
So what was it you thought you showed me, Josh? That you can be an immature
whining troll? OK... you did show me that. Anything else?
--
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-DAD32F...@netnews.comcast.net on 7/26/06 6:59 PM:
>
> > In article <C0ED6AB9.564CB%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
> >> jtmckee-49D839...@netnews.comcast.net on 7/26/06 6:48 PM:
> >>
> >>>> You are babbling and obfuscating again.
> >>>
> >>> Victory is mine. This last post of yours confirmed it. Lesson for you
> >>> Snit: Don't go against me if you don't want to look the fool.
> >>
> >> While it may very well be true that simply talking to you is foolish,
> >> especially on this issue where you act so immature, you simply have not
> >> been
> >> able to alter the following facts that you repeatedly run from
> >
> > The best you can do is respond with insults and strawmen. How about
> > addressing the issues that I've raised? I won't hold my breath.
>
> What relevant issue do you believe is not fully responded to, below:
>
> 1) XP users are not only *not* immune to malware, they are at a much,
> much greater risk of malware than are OS X users.
You keep arguing the strawman that I am claiming to be immune. I have
told you point blank that I do not believe that I am immune. Yet you
keep arguing as if I have. If you're going to have a mature discussion
you'll stop arguing something that I've told you I do not believe.
> 2) It is foolish to not include anti-malware software for XP in TCO/ROI
> studies.
I disagree.
> It is foolish for home or business XP users to not use anti-malware
> software.
I disagree.
> This is upheld by every expert opinion on the subject
Yet despite this advice from the experts we have a list of eleven pieces
of malware that have caused billions of dollars in damages. Yeah, good
advice.
> that has ever been presented to CSMA,
By some of the least qualified people.
> by personal experience,
My evidence to support what I just said.
> and by reported experiences of many, many people in CSMA and elsewhere.
How is this different than what you just said above?
> It is contradicted by *nothing* of any value.
It certainly is: Eleven pieces of malware that, despite the use of
anti-malware software, were able to compromise many systems and cause
billions of dollars of damage. What more do you need to show that
anti-malware is not effective? I have posted to this newsgroup an
article which discusses the ineffectiveness of anti-malware. Yet you
have avoided commenting on it? Why is that? And finally if anti-malware
software is a effective as you're trying to argue it to be why do
Maccies continue to bring up malware as a problem for Windows?
Josh
Snit
you snipped. By the way, your snipping of data you cannot handle makes it
clear you know you are in over your head.
In the end, Josh, when you suggest people use a subset of the suggestions
the experts suggest you are not offering better advice. This is true no
matter how badly you want it to be.
"Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
jtmckee-6A5752...@netnews.comcast.net on 7/26/06 7:21 PM:
>> 1) XP users are not only *not* immune to malware, they are at a much,
>> much greater risk of malware than are OS X users.
>
> You keep arguing the strawman that I am claiming to be immune. I have
> told you point blank that I do not believe that I am immune. Yet you
> keep arguing as if I have. If you're going to have a mature discussion
> you'll stop arguing something that I've told you I do not believe.
On one hand you say you are not immune, on the other you advocate acting as
though you are.
Can you find *any* relevant expert who does not suggest anti-malware
software?
Can you offer a *better* solution to those companies whose employees do not
run as admin but get malware anyway?
Can you offer a better solution to those people outside of companies who do
not run as admins but get malware anyway?
Can you explain why you have you claimed nobody cares about security.
>> 2) It is foolish to not include anti-malware software for XP in TCO/ROI
>> studies.
>
> I disagree.
You are welcome to. But when price comparisons come up between Macs and
Windows do not expect your disbelief to be taken into consideration.
>
>> It is foolish for home or business XP users to not use anti-malware
>> software.
>
> I disagree.
See above
>
>> This is upheld by every expert opinion on the subject that has ever been
>> presented to CSMA, by personal experience, and by reported experiences of
>> many, many people in CSMA and elsewhere.
>>
> Yet despite this advice from the experts we have a list of eleven pieces
> of malware that have caused billions of dollars in damages. Yeah, good
> advice.
Gee, your advice of doing *less* is just dandy. LOL! No, Josh, that is
absurd.
> By some of the least qualified people.
By anyone, Josh.
> My evidence to support what I just said.
??? Your evidence to support what? No amount of your evidence can change my
personal experience with computers.
> How is this different than what you just said above?
Those that report their evidence in CSMA need not be experts or me. I
mentioned three "groups":
* every expert referenced in CSMA
* me
* other layfolks in CSMA and elsewhere
If you can really not tell them apart, so be it.
Do not expect me to believe you over those three groups, though. That would
be silly.
>> It is contradicted by *nothing* of any value.
>
> It certainly is: Eleven pieces of malware that, despite the use of
> anti-malware software, were able to compromise many systems and cause
> billions of dollars of damage. What more do you need to show that
> anti-malware is not effective? I have posted to this newsgroup an
> article which discusses the ineffectiveness of anti-malware. Yet you
> have avoided commenting on it? Why is that? And finally if anti-malware
> software is a effective as you're trying to argue it to be why do
> Maccies continue to bring up malware as a problem for Windows?
Please do try to stay on topic, Josh.
Nobody has said that anti-malware tools are the only part of the solution...
but when you offer a subset of the suggestions others do, there is no reason
to think your solution is better *unless* you can show where the
anti-malware software *increases* malware in a general sense.
>> 3) When you whine that you are not at any significant risk because you
>> did one set of test that only showed non-severe malware, at least
>> that you will admit to, you are using the logic of a sexually
>> promiscuous teen who insists he is not at risk because he tested
>> negative of any major STD.
>>
>> 4) Even if it really, really pisses you off, which it clearly does, #3
>> is *still* true. It will be true no matter how many straw men you
>> fling about, how "confrontational" you find reality it be, how
>> insulted you feel or insulting you get.
>>
>> 5) XP users are not immune from malware. This is true no matter how many
>> times you insinuate that they are (well, that Win2K users are).
>>
>> Oh, and you snipped the following:
>>
>> -----
>>> You're the one who was lost. It wasn't until I showed you the way that
>>> you're just now starting to get it.
>>
>> You are babbling. Deal with the fact you are not immune.
>>
>> I am curious, though, what it is you think you showed me? You jumped on the
>> band wagon of reasoned advice for malware protection but then denied much of
>> the advice was needed.
>> -----
>>
>> So what was it you thought you showed me, Josh? That you can be an immature
>> whining troll? OK... you did show me that. Anything else?
--
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> Thanks Josh for responding, finally, to some of the below.
Grow up Snit.
> > You keep arguing the strawman that I am claiming to be immune. I have
> > told you point blank that I do not believe that I am immune. Yet you
> > keep arguing as if I have. If you're going to have a mature discussion
> > you'll stop arguing something that I've told you I do not believe.
>
> On one hand you say you are not immune, on the other you advocate acting as
> though you are.
No Snit. The only thing that I'd "doing" is protecting myself in a way
which is different than how you think I should. That's not the same
thing as thinking that I'm immune.
> Can you find *any* relevant expert who does not suggest anti-malware
> software?
Who cares? Despite all of these experts recommendations to use
anti-malware software I have remained malware free for over five years.
In the meantime Windows users continue to become infected by malware
despite their use of anti-malware software. I'm sorry but I'll take my
results over theirs any day.
> Can you offer a *better* solution to those companies whose employees do not
> run as admin but get malware anyway?
I can tell you that of the top eleven pieces of malware that started
this thread anti-malware software, the solution that you're
recommending, were effective in preventing none of them. My
recommendations would have prevented all but one of them. You keep
ignoring this simple fact. Your, and the experts, recommendation isn't
working.
> Can you offer a better solution to those people outside of companies who do
> not run as admins but get malware anyway?
Answers the same as above.
> Can you explain why you have you claimed nobody cares about security.
Because when it comes to convenience or security most people will choose
convenience every time.
> >> 2) It is foolish to not include anti-malware software for XP in TCO/ROI
> >> studies.
> >
> > I disagree.
>
> You are welcome to. But when price comparisons come up between Macs and
> Windows do not expect your disbelief to be taken into consideration.
I won't. A fair comparison has never been in the interests of the
Maccies. They always have to inflate the cost of the PC artificially.
> >> This is upheld by every expert opinion on the subject that has ever been
> >> presented to CSMA, by personal experience, and by reported experiences of
> >> many, many people in CSMA and elsewhere.
> >>
> > Yet despite this advice from the experts we have a list of eleven pieces
> > of malware that have caused billions of dollars in damages. Yeah, good
> > advice.
>
> Gee, your advice of doing *less* is just dandy.
Actually Snit it's more. But lacking the technical knowledge that you do
I don't expect you to understand.
> LOL! No, Josh, that is absurd.
>
> > By some of the least qualified people.
>
> By anyone, Josh.
>
> > My evidence to support what I just said.
>
> ??? Your evidence to support what? No amount of your evidence can change my
> personal experience with computers.
Being one of the least competent people administering computers you'll
have to excuse me for not putting much merit in your experiences.
> > How is this different than what you just said above?
>
> Those that report their evidence in CSMA need not be experts or me.
Of course they don't. That's what makes this newsgroup so fun. Watching
you idiots pretend that you know what you're talking about.
> I mentioned three "groups":
>
> * every expert referenced in CSMA
> * me
> * other layfolks in CSMA and elsewhere
>
> If you can really not tell them apart, so be it.
>
> Do not expect me to believe you over those three groups, though. That would
> be silly.
Don't worry Snit. Your reputation of ignoring good information is not in
jeopardy.
> >> It is contradicted by *nothing* of any value.
> >
> > It certainly is: Eleven pieces of malware that, despite the use of
> > anti-malware software, were able to compromise many systems and cause
> > billions of dollars of damage. What more do you need to show that
> > anti-malware is not effective? I have posted to this newsgroup an
> > article which discusses the ineffectiveness of anti-malware. Yet you
> > have avoided commenting on it? Why is that? And finally if anti-malware
> > software is a effective as you're trying to argue it to be why do
> > Maccies continue to bring up malware as a problem for Windows?
>
> Please do try to stay on topic, Josh.
I am on topic Snit. The fact is that despite your insistence that people
use anti-malware software it was ineffective at preventing infections
from these eleven pieces of malware. Great solution you're advocating.
> Nobody has said that anti-malware tools are the only part of the solution...
You're implying it.
> but when you offer a subset of the suggestions others do, there is no reason
> to think your solution is better *unless* you can show where the
> anti-malware software *increases* malware in a general sense.
I don't have to show that it increases. All I have to do is show that
it's not as effective. And I've already done that. You just continue to
ignore it and instead argue against your strawmen.
Josh
BTW - Still looking for your response to the article that I posted about
the ineffectiveness of anti-malware software. Why are you avoiding it?
Snit
> In article <C0ED771D.564DC%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Josh for responding, finally, to some of the below.
>
> Grow up Snit.
I graciously thank you fro finally at least trying to act responsibly - to
at least some extent - and you tell me to *grow up*! Josh, there is nothing
immature about sincerely thanking someone for doing something you have been
trying to get them to do for a while.
There is something immature about your incessant running, whining, snipping,
lying, and spewing of other BS. For example, you snipped the following:
-----
I returned what you snipped. By the way, your snipping of data you cannot
handle makes it clear you know you are in over your head.
In the end, Josh, when you suggest people use a subset of the suggestions
the experts suggest you are not offering better advice. This is true no
matter how badly you want it to be.
-----
In the end, Josh, nothing you have written changes the facts:
1) Most expert suggest corporations follow the following advice:
A) Workers should not have more privileges than needed for their job
B) Those that need more privileges should have multiple accounts -
a regular one and one that has those greater privileges
C) Their should be anti-malware software running and it should
be frequently updated
D) Windows itself, along with any relevant apps, should be updated
2) Even when such advice is available to corporations, many (most?) have
been hit with malware that has lead to billions of dollars of loss
(total, not per company, obviously!). Even with due care and well-paid
IT staffs, companies that use XP are at significant risk of malware.
3) Josh McGee suggests people follow only a subset of the often
recommended suggestions (neglecting 1C but following 1A, 1B, and 1D).
A) Josh does not believe he has been hit with significant malware
B) Josh claims to "know" his systems, and therefore know if he has
malware (much like a teen might claim his girlfriend does not have
an STD based on the fact that he knows her).
C) Josh uses the claim that he has not *had* significant malware he
has admitted to as evidence that he will not *get* malware in the
future - much like a teen might say that he has been promiscuous
yet tested negative for STDs so he can continue to be promiscuous
and stay STD-free.
In short:
The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
>>> You keep arguing the strawman that I am claiming to be immune. I have
>>> told you point blank that I do not believe that I am immune. Yet you
>>> keep arguing as if I have. If you're going to have a mature discussion
>>> you'll stop arguing something that I've told you I do not believe.
>>
>> On one hand you say you are not immune, on the other you advocate acting as
>> though you are.
>
> No Snit. The only thing that I'd "doing" is protecting myself in a way
> which is different than how you think I should. That's not the same
> thing as thinking that I'm immune.
If you are not immune then why do you think you have stayed malware free?
Do you believe you will remain malware free? If not, do you think that
anti-malware software would be a benefit to preventing and eliminating such
malware?
From what I can tell, here are your beliefs:
* You are not immune to malware
* You would not be made any safer by the use of anti-malware software
What say you?
>> Can you find *any* relevant expert who does not suggest anti-malware
>> software?
>
> Who cares?
I do.
The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
> Despite all of these experts recommendations to use anti-malware software I
> have remained malware free for over five years. In the meantime Windows users
> continue to become infected by malware despite their use of anti-malware
> software. I'm sorry but I'll take my results over theirs any day.
You deny you make teen-style defenses yet repeat them over and over.
The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
Who cares that you claim to be malware free? It is 100% irrelevant.
Frankly your claims about your system are irrelevant to the concept of
ROI/TCO studies and suggestions for people in general.
>> Can you offer a *better* solution to those companies whose employees do not
>> run as admin but get malware anyway?
>
> I can tell you that of the top eleven pieces of malware that started
> this thread anti-malware software, the solution that you're
> recommending, were effective in preventing none of them.
The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
> My recommendations would have prevented all but one of them.
The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
> You keep ignoring this simple fact.
The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
> Your, and the experts, recommendation isn't working.
The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
>
>> Can you offer a better solution to those people outside of companies who do
>> not run as admins but get malware anyway?
>
> Answers the same as above.
The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
>
>> Can you explain why you have you claimed nobody cares about security.
>
> Because when it comes to convenience or security most people will choose
> convenience every time.
Look at you - you cannot even bother to download free software that would
bring you closer to the "ideal" of being immune - something even you realize
you are not.
>>>> 2) It is foolish to not include anti-malware software for XP in TCO/ROI
>>>> studies.
>>>
>>> I disagree.
>>
>> You are welcome to. But when price comparisons come up between Macs and
>> Windows do not expect your disbelief to be taken into consideration.
>
> I won't. A fair comparison has never been in the interests of the
> Maccies. They always have to inflate the cost of the PC artificially.
Ah... this is what it really comes down to, I believe. You figured out that
fair comparisons between Mac and Windows machines do not fare well for XP in
part because of the cost of malware and its counter measures. Your
reaction: suggest that people drop some of the counter measures, point to
how it has worked on at least one machine, and suggest that it would somehow
make them closer to being immune to drop malware protection.
In other words you are being dishonest on multiple levels. You keep
repeating your BS hoping to obfuscate it, but it really is that simple.
>>>> This is upheld by every expert opinion on the subject that has ever been
>>>> presented to CSMA, by personal experience, and by reported experiences of
>>>> many, many people in CSMA and elsewhere.
>>>>
>>> Yet despite this advice from the experts we have a list of eleven pieces
>>> of malware that have caused billions of dollars in damages. Yeah, good
>>> advice.
>>
>> Gee, your advice of doing *less* is just dandy.
>
> Actually Snit it's more. But lacking the technical knowledge that you do
> I don't expect you to understand.
Note your non-answer. If what you said was true you would have stated why.
Your cop-out tied to an insult was very immature, Josh. You tell me to
"grow up" and yet you act like that. You should be ashamed!
>> LOL! No, Josh, that is absurd.
>>
>>> By some of the least qualified people.
>>
>> By anyone, Josh.
>>
>>> My evidence to support what I just said.
>>
>> ??? Your evidence to support what? No amount of your evidence can change my
>> personal experience with computers.
>
> Being one of the least competent people administering computers you'll
> have to excuse me for not putting much merit in your experiences.
Wait. Do you *really* consider yourself "one of the least competent people
administering computers"? Er? You may be, but I did not think you would
admit to it... but I do agree that people who are more competent than you
would be more likely to trust my experiences.
Maybe you meant something different? Perhaps you meant to insult me and
claim I was not competent - but if that is the case you merely are sinking
to absurd insults... a very immature thing to do. Is that perhaps what you
mean to do - be immature?
>>> How is this different than what you just said above?
>>
>> Those that report their evidence in CSMA need not be experts or me.
>
> Of course they don't. That's what makes this newsgroup so fun. Watching
> you idiots pretend that you know what you're talking about.
What makes you think you are more knowledgeable than all relevant experts
and all folks in CSMA who have voiced an opinion on this? Let me guess: you
had the equivalent of an AIDS test that came out negative. Remember, Josh:
The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
>> I mentioned three "groups":
>>
>> * every expert referenced in CSMA
>> * me
>> * other layfolks in CSMA and elsewhere
>>
>> If you can really not tell them apart, so be it.
>>
>> Do not expect me to believe you over those three groups, though. That would
>> be silly.
>
> Don't worry Snit. Your reputation of ignoring good information is not in
> jeopardy.
Josh: you got confused over those three groups, referred to yourself as "one
of the least competent people administering computers" and now list your
lone advice - advice which is accurately summarized as "shun anti-malware
software" - as being good.
You simply cannot be serious, can you?
>>>> It is contradicted by *nothing* of any value.
>>>
>>> It certainly is: Eleven pieces of malware that, despite the use of
>>> anti-malware software, were able to compromise many systems and cause
>>> billions of dollars of damage. What more do you need to show that
>>> anti-malware is not effective? I have posted to this newsgroup an
>>> article which discusses the ineffectiveness of anti-malware. Yet you
>>> have avoided commenting on it? Why is that? And finally if anti-malware
>>> software is a effective as you're trying to argue it to be why do
>>> Maccies continue to bring up malware as a problem for Windows?
>>
>> Please do try to stay on topic, Josh.
>
> I am on topic Snit.
No, Josh. You are not. You went off topic and talked about how even when
people are given the advice listed above they are still at risk. This much
is true and not in contention. What is in contention is if shunning
anti-malware software would lower their risk of getting malware. It would
not. That is what you keep running from. Remember:
The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
> The fact is that despite your insistence that people
> use anti-malware software it was ineffective at preventing infections
> from these eleven pieces of malware. Great solution you're advocating.
The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
>> Nobody has said that anti-malware tools are the only part of the solution...
>
> You're implying it.
I call complete and utter bullshit on your lie, there. Please do not lie
again.
>> but when you offer a subset of the suggestions others do, there is no reason
>> to think your solution is better *unless* you can show where the
>> anti-malware software *increases* malware in a general sense.
>
> I don't have to show that it increases. All I have to do is show that
> it's not as effective. And I've already done that.
You lied again.
The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
> You just continue to ignore it and instead argue against your strawmen.
>
> Josh
>
> BTW - Still looking for your response to the article that I posted about
> the ineffectiveness of anti-malware software. Why are you avoiding it?
Um, Josh, I have responded to it repeatedly - your claim otherwise is a lie.
Remember:
The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
Sad how much of your repeated babbling can be fully refuted with those three
lines. Expect to see those three lines in response to your counter claims.
The fact that you need pages and pages to try to refute those three simple
lines is quite telling.
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-09B6ED...@netnews.comcast.net on 7/26/06 8:18 PM:
>
> > In article <C0ED771D.564DC%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks Josh for responding, finally, to some of the below.
> >
> > Grow up Snit.
>
> I graciously thank you fro finally at least trying to act responsibly - to
> at least some extent - and you tell me to *grow up*! Josh, there is nothing
> immature about sincerely thanking someone for doing something you have been
> trying to get them to do for a while.
Failure to address points noted. No use continuing this "discussion"
with someone who can do no better than name call.
Josh
Snit
> In article <C0ED94E4.564E7%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
>> jtmckee-09B6ED...@netnews.comcast.net on 7/26/06 8:18 PM:
>>
>>> In article <C0ED771D.564DC%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Josh for responding, finally, to some of the below.
>>>
>>> Grow up Snit.
>>
>> I graciously thank you fro finally at least trying to act responsibly - to
>> at least some extent - and you tell me to *grow up*! Josh, there is nothing
>> immature about sincerely thanking someone for doing something you have been
>> trying to get them to do for a while.
>>
>> There is something immature about your incessant running, whining, snipping,
>> lying, and spewing of other BS. For example, you snipped the following:
>>
>> -----
>> I returned what you snipped. By the way, your snipping of data you cannot
>> handle makes it clear you know you are in over your head.
>>
>> In the end, Josh, when you suggest people use a subset of the suggestions the
>> experts suggest you are not offering better advice. This is true no matter
>> how badly you want it to be.
>> -----
Note: not comment by Josh.
Note: not comment by Josh.
>>>>> You keep arguing the strawman that I am claiming to be immune. I have
>>>>> told you point blank that I do not believe that I am immune. Yet you
>>>>> keep arguing as if I have. If you're going to have a mature discussion
>>>>> you'll stop arguing something that I've told you I do not believe.
>>>>
>>>> On one hand you say you are not immune, on the other you advocate acting as
>>>> though you are.
>>>
>>> No Snit. The only thing that I'd "doing" is protecting myself in a way
>>> which is different than how you think I should. That's not the same
>>> thing as thinking that I'm immune.
>>
>> If you are not immune then why do you think you have stayed malware free? Do
>> you believe you will remain malware free? If not, do you think that
>> anti-malware software would be a benefit to preventing and eliminating such
>> malware?
>>
>> From what I can tell, here are your beliefs:
>> * You are not immune to malware
>> * You would not be made any safer by the use of anti-malware software
>>
>> What say you?
Note: not comment by Josh.
>>>> Can you find *any* relevant expert who does not suggest anti-malware
>>>> software?
>>>
>>> Who cares?
>>
>> I do.
>>
>> The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
>> Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
>> Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
Note: not comment by Josh.
>>> Despite all of these experts recommendations to use anti-malware software I
>>> have remained malware free for over five years. In the meantime Windows
>>> users
>>> continue to become infected by malware despite their use of anti-malware
>>> software. I'm sorry but I'll take my results over theirs any day.
>>
>> You deny you make teen-style defenses yet repeat them over and over.
>>
>> The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
>> Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
>> Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
>>
>> Who cares that you claim to be malware free? It is 100% irrelevant. Frankly
>> your claims about your system are irrelevant to the concept of ROI/TCO
>> studies
>> and suggestions for people in general.
Note: not comment by Josh.
>>>> Can you offer a *better* solution to those companies whose employees do not
>>>> run as admin but get malware anyway?
>>>
>>> I can tell you that of the top eleven pieces of malware that started
>>> this thread anti-malware software, the solution that you're
>>> recommending, were effective in preventing none of them.
>>
>> The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
>> Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
>> Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
>>
>>> My recommendations would have prevented all but one of them.
>>
>> The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
>> Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
>> Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
>>
>>> You keep ignoring this simple fact.
>>
>> The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
>> Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
>> Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
>>
>>> Your, and the experts, recommendation isn't working.
>>
>> The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
>> Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
>> Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
Note: not comment by Josh.
>>>> Can you offer a better solution to those people outside of companies who do
>>>> not run as admins but get malware anyway?
>>>
>>> Answers the same as above.
>>
>> The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
>> Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
>> Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
>>>
>>>> Can you explain why you have you claimed nobody cares about security.
>>>
>>> Because when it comes to convenience or security most people will choose
>>> convenience every time.
>>
>> Look at you - you cannot even bother to download free software that would
>> bring you closer to the "ideal" of being immune - something even you realize
>> you are not.
Note: not comment by Josh.
>>>>>> 2) It is foolish to not include anti-malware software for XP in TCO/ROI
>>>>>> studies.
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree.
>>>>
>>>> You are welcome to. But when price comparisons come up between Macs and
>>>> Windows do not expect your disbelief to be taken into consideration.
>>>
>>> I won't. A fair comparison has never been in the interests of the
>>> Maccies. They always have to inflate the cost of the PC artificially.
>>
>> Ah... this is what it really comes down to, I believe. You figured out that
>> fair comparisons between Mac and Windows machines do not fare well for XP in
>> part because of the cost of malware and its counter measures. Your reaction:
>> suggest that people drop some of the counter measures, point to how it has
>> worked on at least one machine, and suggest that it would somehow make them
>> closer to being immune to drop malware protection.
>>
>> In other words you are being dishonest on multiple levels. You keep
>> repeating your BS hoping to obfuscate it, but it really is that simple.
Note: not comment by Josh.
Note: not comment by Josh.
>>>>> How is this different than what you just said above?
>>>>
>>>> Those that report their evidence in CSMA need not be experts or me.
>>>
>>> Of course they don't. That's what makes this newsgroup so fun. Watching
>>> you idiots pretend that you know what you're talking about.
>>
>> What makes you think you are more knowledgeable than all relevant experts and
>> all folks in CSMA who have voiced an opinion on this? Let me guess: you had
>> the equivalent of an AIDS test that came out negative. Remember, Josh:
>>
>> The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
>> Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
>> Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
Note: not comment by Josh.
>>>> I mentioned three "groups":
>>>>
>>>> * every expert referenced in CSMA
>>>> * me
>>>> * other layfolks in CSMA and elsewhere
>>>>
>>>> If you can really not tell them apart, so be it.
>>>>
>>>> Do not expect me to believe you over those three groups, though. That
>>>> would be silly.
>>>
>>> Don't worry Snit. Your reputation of ignoring good information is not in
>>> jeopardy.
>>
>> Josh: you got confused over those three groups, referred to yourself as "one
>> of the least competent people administering computers" and now list your lone
>> advice - advice which is accurately summarized as "shun anti-malware
>> software" - as being good.
>>
>> You simply cannot be serious, can you?
Note: not comment by Josh.
>>>>>> It is contradicted by *nothing* of any value.
>>>>>
>>>>> It certainly is: Eleven pieces of malware that, despite the use of
>>>>> anti-malware software, were able to compromise many systems and cause
>>>>> billions of dollars of damage. What more do you need to show that
>>>>> anti-malware is not effective? I have posted to this newsgroup an
>>>>> article which discusses the ineffectiveness of anti-malware. Yet you
>>>>> have avoided commenting on it? Why is that? And finally if anti-malware
>>>>> software is a effective as you're trying to argue it to be why do
>>>>> Maccies continue to bring up malware as a problem for Windows?
>>>>
>>>> Please do try to stay on topic, Josh.
>>>
>>> I am on topic Snit.
>>
>> No, Josh. You are not. You went off topic and talked about how even when
>> people are given the advice listed above they are still at risk. This much
>> is true and not in contention. What is in contention is if shunning
>> anti-malware software would lower their risk of getting malware. It would
>> not. That is what you keep running from. Remember:
>>
>> The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
>> Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
>> Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
Note: not comment by Josh.
>>> The fact is that despite your insistence that people
>>> use anti-malware software it was ineffective at preventing infections
>>> from these eleven pieces of malware. Great solution you're advocating.
>>
>> The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
>> Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
>> Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
Note: not comment by Josh.
>>>> Nobody has said that anti-malware tools are the only part of the
>>>> solution...
>>>
>>> You're implying it.
>>
>> I call complete and utter bullshit on your lie, there. Please do not lie
>> again.
Note: not comment by Josh.
>>>> but when you offer a subset of the suggestions others do, there is no
>>>> reason
>>>> to think your solution is better *unless* you can show where the
>>>> anti-malware software *increases* malware in a general sense.
>>>
>>> I don't have to show that it increases. All I have to do is show that
>>> it's not as effective. And I've already done that.
>>
>> You lied again.
>>
>> The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
>> Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
>> Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
Note: not comment by Josh.
>>> You just continue to ignore it and instead argue against your strawmen.
>>>
>>> Josh
>>>
>>> BTW - Still looking for your response to the article that I posted about
>>> the ineffectiveness of anti-malware software. Why are you avoiding it?
>>
>> Um, Josh, I have responded to it repeatedly - your claim otherwise is a lie.
>> Remember:
>>
>> The full list of safety advice does not make people immune.
>> Josh's subset will lead to them being at even greater risk.
>> Josh's negative "STD test" result does not alter the above.
>>
>> Sad how much of your repeated babbling can be fully refuted with those three
>> lines. Expect to see those three lines in response to your counter claims.
>> The fact that you need pages and pages to try to refute those three simple
>> lines is quite telling.
Note: not relevant comment by Josh.
> Failure to address points noted.
I note the dame thing but am willing to give you another chance to address
the points.
Failing that, I have started a thread about security in general - hopefully
you can clear up your views there without trolling as you are in this
thread.
> No use continuing this "discussion" with someone who can do no better than
> name call.
I am very patient and will give you another chance.