ChekMate author: Question?

[RAiD [SLAM]]

Hello.

By now, I'm sure you have located the virus samples, Well, does your
checker pick them up? :)

Windows 95- Where do you wanna crash today?
Oh spam bots... heres some email addys:bri...@dlois.com
Enjoy pesky spambots...

[Martin Overton]

On Tue, 13 Jan 98 17:58:21 GMT, juno@raid.x (RAiD [SLAM]) wrote:

>Hello.
>
>By now, I'm sure you have located the virus samples, Well, does your
>checker pick them up? :)

This reply is posted just to complete this thread:

I'm sure you don't want me to post my FULL results of testing your
viruses here and on my website?

So, I'll make this easy for you to understand.

1. YES!

2. All of them.

Martin Overton - Author of ChekMate - Chek...@Cavalry.com
Detects Known & UNKNOWN Viruses for DOS,OS/2 & Win 3.x,95,NT.
Web site http://chekware.simplenet.com/cmindex.htm
*** I also keep Tarantulas & Snakes! ***

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <34bfbecb...@news.demon.co.uk>,

Chek...@Cavalry.com (Martin Overton) wrote:
>I'm sure you don't want me to post my FULL results of testing your
>viruses here and on my website?

Actually, as I've stated before, I do.
So, post the results of your testing here and on your www page. I will use
the information to further improve the krile family. I have an idea as to
how krile may have been nabbed, and thats only because krile once it
infected md5.exe would return to infect your checker again. However, rest
assured, this has been corrected.

Now, again, please post your results.

>So, I'll make this easy for you to understand.

By all means. However, a simple YES doesn't tell me the details, of which I
have asked you three times now to provide. So, provide them.

[David Harley]

RAiD [SLAM] (juno@raid.x) wrote:
: In article <34bfbecb...@news.demon.co.uk>,

: Chek...@Cavalry.com (Martin Overton) wrote:
: >I'm sure you don't want me to post my FULL results of testing your
: >viruses here and on my website?
: Actually, as I've stated before, I do.
: So, post the results of your testing here and on your www page. I will use
: the information to further improve the krile family. I have an idea as to
: how krile may have been nabbed, and thats only because krile once it
: infected md5.exe would return to infect your checker again. However, rest
: assured, this has been corrected.

You mean -your- test didn't demonstrate this? That would seem
to indicate that your test was as useless as we suspected.
That's what matters: no-one is interested in helping you with
your quality control......

--
David Harley \ | / alt.comp.virus FAQ
D.Ha...@icrf.icnet.uk \ | / & Anti-Virus Web Page
Support & Security Analyst \ | / Folk London On-Line gig-list
Imperial Cancer Research Fund ____\|/____ http://webworlds.co.uk/dharley/

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <69p5ap$m...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>,
r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX (Rick Joseph) wrote:
>Martin is restricted by his personal and political motivations. He's
>here representing his own anti-virus product, and is doing a great job
>of being polite to everyone.

Did I say he wasn't?

>Since I don't have any of those sort of restrictions, I'll have to ask
>why anyone would want to present information that might help you
>"further improve" your silly virus? Do you think you're developing
>some sort of perfect, undetectable, reproductive malignancy? You've
>expended a lot of energy trying to get people to react to your krile
>Shit, if you were any good at programming you'd write something
>worthwhile instead of wasting your time convincing yourself and trying
>to convince us that you're some sort of evil genius. Grow up.

Rick. I'm not trying nor interested in convincing anyone of anything, I'm
certainly not a Jehovas Witness. <G> As for being an evil genius, Nah.. I
don't see it that way. I choose to write viruses, and I will continue to
write them. If you don't like this, There isn't really too much you can do
about it.

As for growing up, I have been relatively friendly throughout this
newsgroup, Why start with personal statements now?

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <69psur$2n7$2...@charlie.lif.icnet.uk>,

har...@europa.lif.icnet.uk (David Harley) wrote:
>You mean -your- test didn't demonstrate this? That would seem
>to indicate that your test was as useless as we suspected.
>That's what matters: no-one is interested in helping you with
>your quality control......

My test?
When did I conduct any test?
as for helping me, it's not really a persons option. Once they become
infected, they are beta-testing, whether they wanted too or not. That's how
it works. :)

I'm not doren, so I'm not interested in promoting a shareware virus to test
the installation of antivirus programs.

I'd much rather develop viruses which don't alarm the user to there
presence at first. :)

[Martin Overton]

On Fri, 16 Jan 98 22:47:47 GMT, juno@raid.x (RAiD [SLAM]) wrote:

>Actually, as I've stated before, I do.

I have not seen a reply to my last posting in the "Re: Help! My
computer is infected with KRiLE v1.0e thread" On Thu, 15 Jan 1998
08:50:36 GMT, I posted:

"I'll let you decide if you want my test report posted here publicly.
Let me know ;-)"

Until now you had not responded, and you still haven't to that thread.

>So, post the results of your testing here and on your www page. I will use
>the information to further improve the krile family. I have an idea as to
>how krile may have been nabbed, and thats only because krile once it
>infected md5.exe would return to infect your checker again. However, rest
>assured, this has been corrected.

On reflection: in that case as it would help you with your virus
writing, I withdraw my offer to post the results.

As I stated before I find it morally unacceptable to support virus
writers, or in any way help them to make the virus problem worse than
it is.

I now see that me posting a detailed review of your viruses would be
beneficial to you and help you write new viruses, so I withdraw my
offer.

Call me old fashioned, but I prefer not to help someone break the law.

>Now, again, please post your results.

Sorry won't do as this would help you to write viruses.

>>So, I'll make this easy for you to understand.
>
>By all means. However, a simple YES doesn't tell me the details, of which I
>have asked you three times now to provide. So, provide them.

Three times? OK, I'll reply three times, NO, NO and thrice NO.

I think it is sufficient to say that my product detects the changes
made to files by your viruses. I won't help you any further.

Maybe you should take the advice of your virus writing peers and stop
writing viruses?

[Martin Overton]

Hi Rick,

On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 02:33:54 GMT, r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX (Rick
Joseph) wrote:

>In article <69oo7v$jeh$1...@news.usit.net>,

>juno@raid.x (RAiD [SLAM]) wrote:
>>So, post the results of your testing here and on your www page. I will use
>>the information to further improve the krile family. I have an idea as to
>

>Martin is restricted by his personal and political motivations. He's
>here representing his own anti-virus product, and is doing a great job
>of being polite to everyone.

There's nothing political about my motivations, they are purely
personal, nothing more, nothing less.

I try to treat people in the way I expect to be treated. As you know I
try to help people here, I'm not really cut out for marketing as I
can't bend the truth convincingly. ;-)

I have to really believe in a product, have documented (independant)
proof that it does what it says, or most often, I take it and test it
to death. Maybe that's why I do so much beta testing, av, other
software and hardware. I also have a nasty habit of finding bugs in
products, aome manufacturers like this as I can help them improve
their products, others take it as a personal attack (which it's not).

>Since I don't have any of those sort of restrictions, I'll have to ask
>why anyone would want to present information that might help you
>"further improve" your silly virus?

That's why I have now withdrawn my offer, as I don't and won't help
virus writers to improve their creations. Again, this is not politics,
I personally feel that writing viruses is stupid and childish, it's a
shame that they don't channel their 'talents' into more useful
outlets.

> Do you think you're developing
>some sort of perfect, undetectable, reproductive malignancy? You've
>expended a lot of energy trying to get people to react to your krile
>Shit, if you were any good at programming you'd write something
>worthwhile instead of wasting your time convincing yourself and trying
>to convince us that you're some sort of evil genius. Grow up.

I think that's exactly what he thinks he is doing. The samples I saw
posed no challenges for ChekMate, or indeed most generic systems that
monitor file modifications (and that cry wolf when the fingerprint or
CRC database files are deleted). No 'patching' was required, no
'hand-holding' was needed for the modifications that the viruses made
to be detected. Hell, it doesn't even have directory stealth or is
even memory resident!

Thanks for your support, or am I taking things for granted? ;-)

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <34c06a88...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Chek...@Cavalry.com (Martin Overton) wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Jan 98 22:47:47 GMT, juno@raid.x (RAiD [SLAM]) wrote:
>"I'll let you decide if you want my test report posted here publicly.
>Let me know ;-)"

and I have since posted 3 responses. This will be #4.

>Until now you had not responded, and you still haven't to that thread.

What would you like me to tell that person?

>On reflection: in that case as it would help you with your virus
>writing, I withdraw my offer to post the results.

Pity. You were so gung hoe about it before. What changed your mind? :)

>As I stated before I find it morally unacceptable to support virus
>writers, or in any way help them to make the virus problem worse than
>it is.

The problem as you put it, is not as bad as people like yourself make it
out to be. You seem to be forgetting something. If people like my self
didn't code these things, there would be no market for your program nor
anyone elses relating to virus discovery. Are you sure AV people want to
not make money? those www servers aren't cheap, nor are there support
staff.

>I now see that me posting a detailed review of your viruses would be
>beneficial to you and help you write new viruses, so I withdraw my
>offer.

I will write new viruses anyway. and I'll happily spend more time with your
program. So that even if your not willing to provide details, I'll have
them eventually.

>Call me old fashioned, but I prefer not to help someone break the law.

Where I reside, it's not illegal for me to write them.

>Sorry won't do as this would help you to write viruses.

again, I'm going to continue writing anyway. This stance of yours doesn't
help anyone avoid them.

>I think it is sufficient to say that my product detects the changes
>made to files by your viruses. I won't help you any further.

Yes, I'm sure it does. Your product shells to a 3rd party utility for
verification. Your programs internal check method however will not report
modification, since your file is restored to it's original condition before
it gets control.

>Maybe you should take the advice of your virus writing peers and stop
>writing viruses?

My virus writing peers? They encourage viruses, They don't suggest quit
writing. and if all virus writers did stop writing, You wouldn't have a
business. Nor would most AV

______________________________
KRiLE "Are we having fun yet?"
______________________________
[Email? ju...@x.raid

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <34c0fa2d...@news.demon.co.uk>,

Chek...@Cavalry.com (Martin Overton) wrote:
>I think that's exactly what he thinks he is doing. The samples I saw
>posed no challenges for ChekMate, or indeed most generic systems that
>monitor file modifications (and that cry wolf when the fingerprint or
>CRC database files are deleted). No 'patching' was required, no
>'hand-holding' was needed for the modifications that the viruses made
>to be detected. Hell, it doesn't even have directory stealth or is
>even memory resident!

Are you claiming your programs self check is better then DSAV, fprot, AVP?
And no, its not memory resident. nor does it employ directory stealth, of
course, this is all explained in the documentation file which comes with
the binary. The only reason KRiLE didn't get past your self check is
because you choose to shell to another application, which krile then
immediatly infects your file. However, I've noticed you didn't bother to
mention your program doesn't see any changes to itself before it shells to
md5.exe.

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <69r1mr$1...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX (Rick Joseph) wrote:
>OK, I'll give you that. Answer a question, then? Why spend time and
>energy writing a virus?

They are a hobby of mine. I've always been fascinated with self replicating
code. Not destructive code mind you, Just code which replicates on it's
own, and still allows it's host to function.

[B02096105265...@worldnet.att.net]

RAiD [SLAM] wrote:
>
> In article <69r7gr$1...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
> r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX (Rick Joseph) wrote:
> > Hopefully you'll grow out of it. Do you consider releasing your
> >viruses to the public at all irresponsible?
>
> Define releasing. Offering them on a www page is not irresponsible. The zip
> files contain a documentation file, and several other identifiers, no
> effort is made to decieve the user.

>
> ______________________________
> KRiLE "Are we having fun yet?"
> ______________________________
> [Email? ju...@x.raid

he has a point. Where is the page? Does any of the other AV programs
detect Krile family yet?
--
Bill Blevins
B02096105265...@worldnet.att.net
PGP Public Key can be located at the following URL:
http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x342F2E87
Only RSA Keys are accepted.

[B02096105265...@worldnet.att.net]

Ok Thanks. I don't use IRC, but if you will post the url to the site I
will check later.

[RAiD [SLAM]]

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <69riq6$l...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,

B02096105265...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>he has a point. Where is the page? Does any of the other AV programs
>detect Krile family yet?

AVP detects and cleans krile varient 1c (I've tested this for myself)
I am unsure whether or not it detects any of the rest, at the time, it
didn't. As for DSAV, I heard they are coming out with a driver (likely to
be detection only) for krile 1e (v1)

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <69rl02$jb5$2...@news.usit.net>, juno@raid.x (RAiD [SLAM]) wrote:
>AVP detects and cleans krile varient 1c (I've tested this for myself)
>I am unsure whether or not it detects any of the rest, at the time, it
>didn't. As for DSAV, I heard they are coming out with a driver (likely to
>be detection only) for krile 1e (v1)

I forgot to answer your second question. The page is offline, due to server
upgrading. However, if you don't feel like waiting that long for them. You
do have the option of going on IRC (undernet) and joining #virus.
Simply identify yourself as one who wants the zip files, and I will be
happy to send them.

rockhill.sc.us.undernet.org ports: 6660-6669
newbrunswick.nj.us.undernet.org ports: 6660-6669

Email requests will not be answered.

______________________________
KRiLE "Are we having fun yet?"
______________________________

[Email? ju...@x.raid]

[L DeHaan]

On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 19:52:52 -0500, Spanska
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

>
>You're right. Coding some self-replicative program is a metaphysical
>experiment. It's like being a little god, who see his creatures
>spreading all over the world.
>
>We don't want to destruct anything. Just want to see our creations
>live their own life outside the laboratory (our own computer). Can't
>you understand it's fascinating, you all?
>

"We don't want to destruct anything."(!)

Once you release your darling little creatures into the world, they
cause damage in many ways.

They hang computers, damage files, and at the very least tie up system
resources.

They force corporations to spend substantial sums of money for
anti-virus software and additional staffing to prevent virus attacks
on their computer systems, and even more in terms of lost productivity
and virus cleanup should their efforts fail.

And they force John Q Public to spend money on AV software - money
which could better be used for some other purpose.

If you were so concerned about not "destructing" anything, you
wouldn't have released the viruses into the wild in the first place.
Your attitude is very selfish - you revel in being little "gods"
watching your creatures proliferate without any concern for the
consequences to others.

May God have mercy on your souls.

LDH

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <69rsnn$k...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX (Rick Joseph) wrote:
>If you let anyone other than a reputable AV company get ahold of your
>virus, or if you infect any machine other than your own (directly or
>indirectly), you've released it.

Now why would I want to deliberatly send them to AV? They can get them from
infected users, or users who wish to send them samples, They certainly
don't need my help.

>Define "user."

One who visits my page for whatever reason.
:)

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <34c15d9a...@nntp.concentric.net>,

LDH...@concentric.net (L DeHaan) wrote:
>Once you release your darling little creatures into the world, they
>cause damage in many ways.

That's not my problem nor concern. I merely offer them on a www page, what
the people who download them decides to do with them is there business.

>And they force John Q Public to spend money on AV software - money
>which could better be used for some other purpose.

again, not my concern.

>If you were so concerned about not "destructing" anything, you
>wouldn't have released the viruses into the wild in the first place.
>Your attitude is very selfish - you revel in being little "gods"
>watching your creatures proliferate without any concern for the
>consequences to others.

My attitude isn't selfish.

>May God have mercy on your souls.

Perhaps if he actually existed that statement might have some meaning. But,
let's not turn this into a religious discussion :)

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <69s47h$5...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX (Rick Joseph) wrote:
>So you are irresponsible, antisocial, and have little or no regard for
>other's property - just like most other virus writers.

Ahh, here we go again with the character assinations..
Shrug.

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <34c1a3e3...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>,
larry...@sprintmail.com (Larry DeHaan) wrote:
>I don't suppose Spanska could answer for himself. Perhaps you are now
>his official spokesperson.

Spanska is quiet able to answer for him self. I chose to respond to your
comments. This is UseNet after all.

>Nevertheless, "I find your lack of concern disturbing". The fact that
>you "merely" offer viruses on a web page doesn't absolve you of all
>responsibility. You created the virus, you put it on your web page
>for any Tom, Dick or Harry to download, knowing full well the problems
>it could cause when released into the wild. That being true, you are
>an agent and contributing factor to the damage it causes.

What other people choose to do with those viruses is there business, Not
mine. I'm only offering them for people who are interested in such things
(like myself).

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <MPG.f2ac8ca6...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>,
gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (George Wenzel) wrote:
>Hogwash. If every virus writer on the planet stopped writing viruses
>this second, and no viruses were written in the future, there would still
>be a market for anti-virus software. Justifying your virus writing by
>claiming your efforts make a market for anti-virus programs simply
>doesn't make sense.

George, I made no attempt to justify anything. The market would dry up
without a need for it. I and many others provide that market's need, Not on
purpose, it just happens that way. We code the creatures, and others make
money removing them. assbackwards, but that's how it works.

>Would you go out into the ocean, spill as much oil there as you could,
>with the benevolent purpose of making a market for 3M and their "oil-
>sucking foam"?

Since I'm not interested in making this planets ecosystem anyworse then it
already is, No.

>Sure, AV people want to make money, that's why they're in the business.
>They won't make more money if there are more virus writers, though. Nor
>will they make less money if you stop writing viruses.

George, If we all stopped. There would be no new viruses to add to the
market. the available viruses would die off with nothing to replace them.
In that case, ones the market dries up, there would be no further profit
for Antiviral software. Who needs it if viruses cease to exist?

>Why don't you supply technical support to those that get infected with
>your viruses? There have already been people in this newsgroup
>complaining. They don't care what your purpose was for writing the virus
>- they just want the thing off of their systems.

That's not my job George. I'm not an Antivirus person. I do not get paid
for "technical support" Antivirus people do, Let them deal with it.

>Writing viruses isn't the problem. I don't think that anybody would have
>a problem with you writing all the viruses you like. Problems result
>when you SPREAD those viruses. And yes, it is quite likely that
>infecting systems with viruses is illegal in your area. Infecting a
>system with a virus usually falls under "unauthorized modification" or
>"electronic trespass" laws.

George, I'm not violating ANY laws by offering them on a www page or an
anon ftp server. I make no attempt to hide the fact that what the user is
downloading is a virus, and is potentially harmful.

>See above. You're making a false assumption here. Most anti-virus
>products have trouble just trying to detect all the known viruses, let
>alone the new ones. If you and all your virus-writing peers stopped
>writing viruses right now, there would still be a market for AV products.

See my reply above George. It wouldn't take years. Don't you have any faith
in the AV products and people?

[Bruce P. Burrell]

RAiD [SLAM] <juno@raid.x> wrote:
> In article <69r7gr$1...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,

> r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX (Rick Joseph) wrote:
> > Hopefully you'll grow out of it. Do you consider releasing your
> >viruses to the public at all irresponsible?

> Define releasing. Offering them on a www page is not irresponsible.

Sure it is.

> The zip files contain a documentation file, and several other
> identifiers, no effort is made to decieve the user.

How do you guarantee that the docs and identifiers are included when
passed on to another by someone who obtained it from you?

How do you prevent someone from getting it and using it maliciously?

The point is that with viruses, once they've escaped, they're "out
there" and there is no way to guarantee that all copies are destroyed.
Hence it's fine to write a virus and keep it quarantined on your machine,
but not to allow ANYONE else to have it, since they might not maintain the
quarantine.

But then again, of course you knew that already.

-BPB

[Martin Overton]

On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 20:58:59 GMT, r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX (Rick
Joseph) wrote:

>As a representative of CheckMate, you have to be somewhat of a
>diplomat when you post publically. That's all I meant.

I know you didn't mean anything sinister or nefarious. I post and
behave the same as I do in any other groups, even on the
alt.pets.arachnid usenet group which has nothing to do with computers
or viruses.

As ChekWARE is my company, I set the standards I work to ;-)

>>>Since I don't have any of those sort of restrictions, I'll have to ask
>>>why anyone would want to present information that might help you
>>>"further improve" your silly virus?
>>
>>That's why I have now withdrawn my offer, as I don't and won't help
>>virus writers to improve their creations. Again, this is not politics,
>

>I think that's a good decision.

Thanks.

[Martin Overton]

On Sat, 17 Jan 98 20:06:39 GMT, juno@raid.x (RAiD [SLAM]) wrote:

>and I have since posted 3 responses. This will be #4.

The answer is still NO.

>What would you like me to tell that person?

As I was the last person to respond to that thread, then that person
is moi!

>>On reflection: in that case as it would help you with your virus
>>writing, I withdraw my offer to post the results.
>
>Pity. You were so gung hoe about it before. What changed your mind? :)

Realising that you just seem to want someone to justify your purpose
for writing viruses, and to point out the obvious errors in your
viruses.

>>As I stated before I find it morally unacceptable to support virus
>>writers, or in any way help them to make the virus problem worse than
>>it is.
>
>The problem as you put it, is not as bad as people like yourself make it
>out to be. You seem to be forgetting something. If people like my self
>didn't code these things, there would be no market for your program nor
>anyone elses relating to virus discovery. Are you sure AV people want to
>not make money? those www servers aren't cheap, nor are there support
>staff.

The problem is bad enough, and you and your ilk don't help. Why don't
you do something constructive instead?

As has been stated here many, many times, if viruses didn't exist,
we'd all be happier and doing something more exciting with our time,
rather than dissecting the 10,000th virus that looks very similar to
the other 9,999 of it's class.

If you didn't notice I write other software than just anti-virus.

I can't and won't speak for all the other AV people, but I'm not in it
for the money. Does that surprise you?

The registration fee I get for ChekMate and my other programs goes
straight back into development and improving services to my customers.

I've got plenty of other ideas for programs to write that have nothing
to do with AV. So personally I would be very happy if the virus
problem disappeared, my wife might actually see me more often ;-)

The cost of my web server is peanuts, I rent space I need from a
service provider. I also use the space for my other hobbies - keeping
tarantulas and snakes (amongst the more conventional pets). I help
people with those too. You can find my other non-av pages at
http://chekware.simplenet.com/burrow

>>I now see that me posting a detailed review of your viruses would be
>>beneficial to you and help you write new viruses, so I withdraw my
>>offer.
>
>I will write new viruses anyway. and I'll happily spend more time with your
>program. So that even if your not willing to provide details, I'll have
>them eventually.

Fine, you'll do what you want and one day you'll realise that it
wasn't such a good idea to write viruses. Anyway, if you don't care
what others think why not use your real name and not hide behind your
'handle' when you post, scared that the law may knock on your door?

>>Call me old fashioned, but I prefer not to help someone break the law.
>
>Where I reside, it's not illegal for me to write them.

So you are in the States, I'm surprised that you didn't quote the
relevant ammendment to justify your actions. Wherever you are it IS
illegal to infect another persons computer without their consent.

>>Sorry won't do as this would help you to write viruses.
>
>again, I'm going to continue writing anyway. This stance of yours doesn't
>help anyone avoid them.

But I'll sleep at night with a clear conscience, how about you?

>>I think it is sufficient to say that my product detects the changes
>>made to files by your viruses. I won't help you any further.
>
>Yes, I'm sure it does. Your product shells to a 3rd party utility for
>verification. Your programs internal check method however will not report
>modification, since your file is restored to it's original condition before
>it gets control.

I beg to differ. I'm not starting this all over again, enough is
enough. I'm not prepared to waste more of my time on this so-called
'debate'.

If you want to continue this debate, let's take it over to e-mail. I'm
sure the rest of the readers here are as fed up as I am with repeating
themselves.

>>Maybe you should take the advice of your virus writing peers and stop
>>writing viruses?
>
>My virus writing peers? They encourage viruses, They don't suggest quit
>writing. and if all virus writers did stop writing, You wouldn't have a
>business. Nor would most AV

Is that why you're so polite about them in your NFO files that you
include with the viruses? I quote:

"To all VX related:
Those of you who think my viruses suck, Oh well. I really don't care
that you think. Those of you who think i'm an a**hole, Good. I don't
care who or how many scum sucking lamers i infect. I'm doing the
world a favor removing dipsh*ts like that."

I've replaced a few characters with *, I'm sure that you get the gist.

<Ad snipped>

[Martin Overton]

On Sat, 17 Jan 98 20:06:41 GMT, juno@raid.x (RAiD [SLAM]) wrote:

>In article <34c0fa2d...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> Chek...@Cavalry.com (Martin Overton) wrote:
>>I think that's exactly what he thinks he is doing. The samples I saw
>>posed no challenges for ChekMate, or indeed most generic systems that
>>monitor file modifications (and that cry wolf when the fingerprint or
>>CRC database files are deleted). No 'patching' was required, no
>>'hand-holding' was needed for the modifications that the viruses made
>>to be detected. Hell, it doesn't even have directory stealth or is
>>even memory resident!
>
>Are you claiming your programs self check is better then DSAV, fprot, AVP?

No, and by now you should know that I don't make any claims that can't
be substantiated. Better is a subjecive thing, better in some ways,
not so good in others.

>And no, its not memory resident. nor does it employ directory stealth, of
>course, this is all explained in the documentation file which comes with
>the binary.

Did I say otherwise? But, I didn't need to read your documentation to
work this out.

>The only reason KRiLE didn't get past your self check is
>because you choose to shell to another application, which krile then
>immediatly infects your file.

Yet again, you have made an assumption, where is your scientific
proof. I know how my product works as I code it. Even if you bypassed
the MD5 check it wouldn't matter.

>However, I've noticed you didn't bother to
>mention your program doesn't see any changes to itself before it shells to
>md5.exe.

See above, I've got other things to do than argue the toss with you
about how my program works based on your guesses.

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <34c1d298...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Chek...@Cavalry.com (Martin Overton) wrote:

please excuse any typos, as Im tired at this point. :)

>Realising that you just seem to want someone to justify your purpose
>for writing viruses, and to point out the obvious errors in your
>viruses.

all programs have errors. Viruses sometimes contain more since they
replicate and must interact with other files. Unfortunatly, they cannot
anticipate every system configuration.

>The problem is bad enough, and you and your ilk don't help. Why don't
>you do something constructive instead?

I'm open to suggestions.

>I can't and won't speak for all the other AV people, but I'm not in it
>for the money. Does that surprise you?

Actually, it does.

>Fine, you'll do what you want and one day you'll realise that it
>wasn't such a good idea to write viruses. Anyway, if you don't care
>what others think why not use your real name and not hide behind your
>'handle' when you post, scared that the law may knock on your door?

In what way am I hiding? I'm not using an anon-remailer or posting service.
it wouldn't be *that* difficult to find my real name if someone so desired.

>So you are in the States, I'm surprised that you didn't quote the
>relevant ammendment to justify your actions. Wherever you are it IS
>illegal to infect another persons computer without their consent.

That would apply if i was personally infecting people. However, I'm not. I
only put the viruses on my www page. What happens to them at that point is
not my responsibility.

>But I'll sleep at night with a clear conscience, how about you?

I sleep fine thanx. I'm practically falling asleep as I type. I will goto
bed once I finish responding.

>I beg to differ. I'm not starting this all over again, enough is
>enough. I'm not prepared to waste more of my time on this so-called
>'debate'.

Shrug. I will explain something to you. Had you bothered to pay attention
to krile or the krile.nfo you would know krile is a *prepender*. It *has*
to restore the host in order to pass control to it. There is *no* other
way.

>Is that why you're so polite about them in your NFO files that you
>include with the viruses? I quote:

If you will notice in krile.nfo for v1c, I'm not polite to anyone.

>"To all VX related:
>Those of you who think my viruses suck, Oh well. I really don't care
>that you think. Those of you who think i'm an a**hole, Good. I don't
>care who or how many scum sucking lamers i infect. I'm doing the
>world a favor removing dipsh*ts like that."

And I stand by that statement.

>I've replaced a few characters with *, I'm sure that you get the gist.

I do.

>
><Ad snipped>

? an ad? Was I advertising?
You confused an add for a signature?

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <34c1cd2a...@news.demon.co.uk>,

Chek...@Cavalry.com (Martin Overton) wrote:
>No, and by now you should know that I don't make any claims that can't
>be substantiated. Better is a subjecive thing, better in some ways,
>not so good in others.

You already have. Your claiming your checker can determine it's been
modified once it originally gets control. But what apparently you didn't
consider is the fact krile restores it byte for byte prior to you getting
control. It is after all, a prepender.

>Did I say otherwise? But, I didn't need to read your documentation to
>work this out.

Thats good.

>Yet again, you have made an assumption, where is your scientific
>proof. I know how my product works as I code it. Even if you bypassed
>the MD5 check it wouldn't matter.

My scientific proof is the way in which a prepender works. Apparently, You
don't know how they work.

>See above, I've got other things to do than argue the toss with you
>about how my program works based on your guesses.

It's not a guess martin. I restore your file *before* you get control. down
to the very last byte, size and date/time.

[Ståle Fagerland]

RAiD [SLAM] wrote:
>

> >Fine, you'll do what you want and one day you'll realise that it
> >wasn't such a good idea to write viruses. Anyway, if you don't care
> >what others think why not use your real name and not hide behind your
> >'handle' when you post, scared that the law may knock on your door?
>

> In what way am I hiding? I'm not using an anon-remailer or posting service.
> it wouldn't be *that* difficult to find my real name if someone so desired.

Right you are :). In fact, your identity is not that hard
to get to, and your activities can be traced backwards for
quite some time.

>
> >So you are in the States, I'm surprised that you didn't quote the
> >relevant ammendment to justify your actions. Wherever you are it IS
> >illegal to infect another persons computer without their consent.
>

> That would apply if i was personally infecting people. However, I'm not. I
> only put the viruses on my www page. What happens to them at that point is
> not my responsibility.

Actually, you're being a bit shortsighted here. You _are_ telling
people to go forth and infect others with your viruses. You make
quite a production out of that. You should know that some countries
(with extradition agreements with the US) will happily throw your
ass in jail for this. Chris Pile is a case in point.

> I sleep fine thanx. I'm practically falling asleep as I type. I will

This seems to have happened often when you made your viruses.

> >that you think. Those of you who think i'm an a**hole, Good. I don't
> >care who or how many scum sucking lamers i infect. I'm doing the
> >world a favor removing dipsh*ts like that."
>

> And I stand by that statement.

Good. You want to bet someone from the UK is not reading this
statement? If they're not, maybe you're safe ;>.

Regards
StF

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <69tg6e$b...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX (Rick Joseph) wrote:
>Then you'll understand if I don't appologize for labeling you
>"irresponsible," "antisocial" and with no regard for others' property.

Those aren't founded labels though rick. As for no regard, if I had no
regard as you say, I would find other ways to spread my viruses, Not
offering them on a www page where *anyone* can get them. Use your head
Rick.

>And while you "stand by that statement" (anonymously, of course), you
>might consider the possible consequences of your actions. Do your
>parents know about your fascination with viruses?

My parents? Rick, What my parents know about me or lack of, Is none of
yours nor anyone elses concern. Do your parents know everytime you use the
restroom?

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <34C227...@login.eunet.no>,

Ståle Fagerland <sta...@login.eunet.no> wrote:
>Right you are :). In fact, your identity is not that hard
>to get to, and your activities can be traced backwards for
>quite some time.

My email and posting activities sure. Anything else I may do, Nope.

>Actually, you're being a bit shortsighted here. You _are_ telling
>people to go forth and infect others with your viruses. You make
>quite a production out of that. You should know that some countries
>(with extradition agreements with the US) will happily throw your
>ass in jail for this. Chris Pile is a case in point.

Actually, My page clearly explains that these are *live* viruses, they may
cause your computer harm. They are for educational purposes only. Like i've
already said, I make no effort to conceal the fact they are viruses.

>This seems to have happened often when you made your viruses.

Actually, I don't program when I'm tired.

>Good. You want to bet someone from the UK is not reading this
>statement? If they're not, maybe you're safe ;>.

You must ask yourself though, Do you think I would care whether someone
from the UK was reading it? The UK has what to do with me? :)

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <MPG.f2b59eb9...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>,
gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (George Wenzel) wrote:
>"I just put the loaded gun on the sidewalk. It's not my fault somebody
>got shot."

That's not the same thing George. And I'm sure you know the difference.
The same thing (which is what I think you were trying for) would be this:

I just sell the guns, I don't shoot people with them. In my case, there
free.

>Sure it is. You only care about your silly desire to see your creation
>spread. You (admittedly) have no concern for other people's computer
>systems and resources. I'd call that selfish, but that's just my
>opinion.

That's not selfish George. As for no concern, I have been quoted out of
context regarding my .nfo files for those viruses several times now.

George, if I *really didn't* care, I would find other ways to spread them.
Not offer them on a www page. Give me a little more credit.

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <69tep3$b...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX (Rick Joseph) wrote:
>Let's get this straight: In your twisted view of reality you're the
>victim, and you're not really wasting your time coding malicious
>software and carelessly spreading it, despite what might hapen to
>innocent users. You're actually doing the world a service...

Actually Rick.. Since even a virus is technically copyrighted material, AV
should be paying royalties for violating copyright. IE: reverse engineering
etc.

That thought never crossed your mind though did it? :)

>The "market" -- there's no market for viruses, unless -- Oh, I see.
>Are you and Doron are working together, then, or are you just
>following his example?

Again with the personal attacks. Rick, as much as You would like to see
viruses cease to exist, That isn't going to happen for a long time. The
main reason is because of egotistical attitudes from AntiVirus people. You
present us a challenge, and we can't wait to sneak past your products. It's
a cat and mouse game Rick, except the VX are always one step ahead.

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <69tfc0$b...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX (Rick Joseph) wrote:
>No there's no blatant name-calling there. If anything, you've
>commited your own character suicide by ranting in public about how
>cool it is for you to spread viruses.

Did I say anything about it being 'cool'? I do *not* spread them. I offer
them with source on a www page. If others choose to have them leave that
safe page and do harm, thats between them. *Not* me. When you can learn the
difference, it will be a good day indeed.

>Do you think the terms "irresponsible" and "antisocial" are _not_
>descriptive of someone who spreads viruses? Can you claim that you
>really do have respect for others property, even though you release
>your viruses to the pubic?

I release my viruses via a www page. You cannot attempt to claim I release
malicious code with the intent of harm rick, I make *no* effort to hide the
fact it's a virus. *none* whatsoever. If I had no respect for others
property, Don't you think I would take the route other virus writers have
and found more effective as you say 'spread'ing methods? I mean, In your
eyes, You think I want them to be all over the place. If that were true,
I'm sure i'd come up with a better way to 'spread' them.

>What would you say about someone who released a gaggle (or whatever
>the collective plural is) of mosquitos into your bedroom?
>"Irresponsible" and "antisocial" would be putting it mildly.

An annoyance. You seem to confuse the issues.

[David Harley]

Ståle Fagerland (sta...@login.eunet.no) wrote:
: RAiD [SLAM] wrote:
: >
: > And I stand by that statement.

: Good. You want to bet someone from the UK is not reading this

: statement? If they're not, maybe you're safe ;>.

I wouldn't make any bets on that particular probability. ;-)

--
David Harley \ | / alt.comp.virus FAQ
D.Ha...@icrf.icnet.uk \ | / & Anti-Virus Web Page
Support & Security Analyst \ | / Folk London On-Line gig-list
Imperial Cancer Research Fund ____\|/____ http://webworlds.co.uk/dharley/

[Graham Cluley]

ju...@x.raid writes:
> In article <34C227...@login.eunet.no>,
> Ståle Fagerland <sta...@login.eunet.no> wrote:
> > Actually, you're being a bit shortsighted here. You _are_
> > telling people to go forth and infect others with your
> > viruses.

He wants to be careful about that. I read the full court report from the
Black Baron/Christopher Pile case. It seems the main reason he was
treated so severely (18 months in prison) was not so much the damage that
his viruses had done to a company's data, but that he was inciting others
by making his SMEG polymorphic engine available for all and sundry.

> >Good. You want to bet someone from the UK is not reading this
> >statement? If they're not, maybe you're safe ;>.
>

> You must ask yourself though, Do you think I would care
> whether someone from the UK was reading it? The UK has
> what to do with me? :)

Well, the UK has quite a lot to do with you if you or your viruses break
the law in this country. The international boundaries matter little
between countries which have extradition treaties. For example, Dr
Joseph Popp (the AIDS trojan affair) was extradited from the US and ended
up in the UK courts. As it happens they decided he was insane and sent
it back. However, this didn't stop the Italian courts finding him guilty
in absentia.

Certainly I'd want to take indepth legal advice before I did anything
which breached the computer crime laws at
http://www.ibmpcug.co.uk/~drsolly

Have you taken legal advice?

--
Graham Cluley, gcl...@uk.drsolomon.com Dr Solomon's AntiVirus (DSAV)
UK Support: sup...@uk.drsolomon.com UK Tel: +44 (0)1296 318700
US Support: sup...@us.drsolomon.com US Tel: 781 273 7400
CompuServe: GO DRSOLOMON Web: http://www.drsolomon.com
NEW:Evaluate Dr Solomon's FindVirus 7.79! Download it from our website

[Ståle Fagerland]

RAiD [SLAM] wrote:

> My email and posting activities sure. Anything else I may do, Nope.

:)). You _are_ an optimist.

> Actually, I don't program when I'm tired.

Ah. You mean your bugs gets all these bugs even when you're
fully awake ?

>
> >Good. You want to bet someone from the UK is not reading this
> >statement? If they're not, maybe you're safe ;>.
>
> You must ask yourself though, Do you think I would care whether someone
> from the UK was reading it? The UK has what to do with me? :)

Let's see if we can get you to see some light here.

First, you say (here) that your viruses are for educational
purposes only. In other writings, you say : please infect
as many lamers as possible with my viruses, or words to that
effect. In the UK they have a fancy legal term for that,
it's called "incitement".

Now, let's say that some english moron gets hold of one of
your viruses, reads your mindless drivel about spreading and
infecting, and acts upon it. In a short space of time we may
be looking at damage for, say ,£ 50.000. Were you aware of
the fact that in such a case there's a good chance that _you_
would be held responsible? That in fact, just by having written
a statement which is incitement to crime, you might be held
responsible even if that same moron never even read it? That
it might be enough that it could be shown that you had written
an incitement and that moron could have read it? If I was his
defence lawyer I would most certainly point out that much of
the blame should be placed at _your_ door.

> ______________________________
> KRiLE "Are we having fun yet?"
> ______________________________

I don't know. Are you sweating yet?

Regards
StF

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <34C277...@login.eunet.no>,

Ståle Fagerland <sta...@login.eunet.no> wrote:
>:)). You _are_ an optimist.

No. I just happen to know what my ISP keeps track of is all.

>Ah. You mean your bugs gets all these bugs even when you're
>fully awake ?

KRiLE has very few bugs remaining. the DOS memory problem was already
resolved. Like any other program, bugs can only be fixed when there known.

>First, you say (here) that your viruses are for educational
>purposes only. In other writings, you say : please infect
>as many lamers as possible with my viruses, or words to that
>effect. In the UK they have a fancy legal term for that,
>it's called "incitement".

That's nice and all. But, extraditing me for my viruses would cost your
government far more then it's worth. Also, you must consider how many
virus authors remain uncaught. Christopher Pile as so many of you keep
pointing too was *one* author out of many of us. Statistically, The odds
are in my favor.

>Now, let's say that some english moron gets hold of one of
>your viruses, reads your mindless drivel about spreading and
>infecting, and acts upon it. In a short space of time we may
>be looking at damage for, say ,£ 50.000. Were you aware of
>the fact that in such a case there's a good chance that _you_
>would be held responsible? That in fact, just by having written
>a statement which is incitement to crime, you might be held
>responsible even if that same moron never even read it? That
>it might be enough that it could be shown that you had written
>an incitement and that moron could have read it? If I was his
>defence lawyer I would most certainly point out that much of
>the blame should be placed at _your_ door.

If this person is a moron as you say, he/she will most likely not handle
the binary with care, and windup infecting him/herself.

>I don't know. Are you sweating yet?

I'm not sweating. Your mindless bantering doesn't phase me any.

______________________________
KRiLE "Are we having fun yet?"
______________________________

[Email? ju...@x.raid]

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <69tn6a$saa$1...@charlie.lif.icnet.uk>,

har...@europa.lif.icnet.uk (David Harley) wrote:
>I wouldn't make any bets on that particular probability. ;-)

Considering this is UseNet, any bets like that would be a total waste.

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <69tq86$i...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX (Rick Joseph) wrote:
>No, that "thought" didn't cross my mind. May I be excused, now?

So on one hand, Your for the laws, and on the other, You don't mind
breaking them? Is that what your saying Rick?

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <69tnnc$reo$1...@chlorine.compulink.co.uk>,

san...@cix.co.uk ("Graham Cluley") wrote:
>He wants to be careful about that. I read the full court report from the
>Black Baron/Christopher Pile case. It seems the main reason he was
>treated so severely (18 months in prison) was not so much the damage that
>his viruses had done to a company's data, but that he was inciting others
>by making his SMEG polymorphic engine available for all and sundry.

That's *one* virus author. Out of *many*. Statistically that's no more
valid then conducting a virus test with an antivirus, but only using *one*
virus to test it with.

>Well, the UK has quite a lot to do with you if you or your viruses break
>the law in this country. The international boundaries matter little
>between countries which have extradition treaties. For example, Dr
>Joseph Popp (the AIDS trojan affair) was extradited from the US and ended
>up in the UK courts. As it happens they decided he was insane and sent
>it back. However, this didn't stop the Italian courts finding him guilty
>in absentia.

I am not breaking any laws however. I am using my rights as a citizen where
I live to publish material I see fit to publish. What others choose to do
with that material is there business. You certainly don't sue publishers of
bomb making material, You sue the person who chose to build and/or detonate
the bomb.

>Certainly I'd want to take indepth legal advice before I did anything
>which breached the computer crime laws at
>http://www.ibmpcug.co.uk/~drsolly

Again, Since your 'laws' do *not* apply to me, I see no reason to read more
of dr solomons drivel.

>Have you taken legal advice?

For my residence, I have. And what *I* am doing is *not* illegal. You
cannot prosecute me based on someone elses decision to use a program.

[Ståle Fagerland]

RAiD [SLAM] wrote:
>

> >:)). You _are_ an optimist.
>
> No. I just happen to know what my ISP keeps track of is all.

Well, you see.. if you were to become the focus of a criminal
investigation, what your ISP keeps track of would be just a small
part of your problem.

Instead, a likely scenario is much more like this:

Your residence is toroughly swept for any and all incriminating
material, including computers, disks, notes and what have you.
Your friends (and not to forget, your enemies) are questioned.
Possibly a surprising number of people would be willing to
sell you down the river. Have you bragged of your exploits
to someone who now doesn't like you? Did you accidentally lose
some juicy notes behind that desk, where they could later
be found by an officer? You get the idea?

Seriously, what do you intend to do _if_ you're someday
arrested? Wear a paper bag over your head like Dr. Popp, in
the hope the court deems you temporarily insane?

>
> I'm not sweating. Your mindless bantering doesn't phase me any.

Hehe. That's just because there's no _heat_ on you yet..

Regards
StF

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <69u6mf$8l6$1...@nnrp1.rcsntx.swbell.net>,
inv...@spamsucks.com wrote:
>Did you see the one, NEW MEXICO?

I'm not located in New Mexico.

>What you're doing *is illegal*.
>Check the Solly site.

What I do is not illegal.

>Smoke another one then let us know.

Get a clue. Then a life.

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <34C29E...@login.eunet.no>,

Ståle Fagerland <sta...@login.eunet.no> wrote:
>Well, you see.. if you were to become the focus of a criminal
>investigation, what your ISP keeps track of would be just a small
>part of your problem.

My government has better things to waste money on.

>Instead, a likely scenario is much more like this:

This may happen where you live, this doesn't happen here.

>Seriously, what do you intend to do _if_ you're someday
>arrested? Wear a paper bag over your head like Dr. Popp, in
>the hope the court deems you temporarily insane?

In order to be arrested, I need to be charged with a crime.

>Hehe. That's just because there's no _heat_ on you yet..

It's quiet nice this time of year. There won't be any 'heat'.

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <69u2ao$p69$1...@nnrp3.rcsntx.swbell.net>,
inv...@spamsucks.com wrote:
>I'm sure quite a few of your habits are known by now.

You know nothing about me. Let's not play games.

>hehe You still haven't found clue.

Again, let's not play childish games.

>Not yet. |->

Ahh, that's too bad.

[Bill Clark]

Rick Joseph wrote:

> What would you say about someone who released a gaggle (or whatever
> the collective plural is) of mosquitos into your bedroom?
> "Irresponsible" and "antisocial" would be putting it mildly.

Around here that would be:

A) Swarm
B) Released by "Mother Nature"
C) Normal behavior

-bc-

User friendly software:
That which makes friends of those trying to use it...

[Bill Clark]

George Wenzel wrote:

> "I just put the loaded gun on the sidewalk. It's not my fault somebody
> got shot."

Aw, come on George, I know you can do better than that lame ass
analogy! Exams or term papers wearing you down?

[Doren Rosenthal]

inv...@spamsucks.com wrote:

: They won't need to extradite.
:
: Virus authors, who haven't been caught, didn't make a habit of posting to
: usenet in order to get AV companies to pay them notice. You, on the other
: hand, post here, in the true spirit of a Doren clone parser, begging for
: attention.

Just a moment guys. I run a legitimate engineering company here and I
respect the laws. If you have a complaint, I'm always happy to cooperate
with law enforcment.

You'll want to direct your charges with the San Luis Obispo police
department. For the guy in charge, ask for Sargent Pete Hubbard. You won't
need to describe my program to him though, they are registered users.

Doren Rosenthal

Author of "The Rosenthal Utilities (tm)" http://slonet.org/~doren/
Awarded "Best Shareware of 1997" by Boot-It

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <69u7pm$a7e$1...@nnrp1.rcsntx.swbell.net>,

inv...@spamsucks.com wrote:
>They won't need to extradite.
>
>Virus authors, who haven't been caught, didn't make a habit of posting to
>usenet in order to get AV companies to pay them notice. You, on the other
>hand, post here, in the true spirit of a Doren clone parser, begging for
>attention.

Excuse me? I'm not begging for a damn thing, certainly *not* attention by
the other side. As for being a Doren clone, I do not distribute nor write
shareware (atleast, not anymore). I do not charge money or expect people to
register my viruses.

>Statistically speaking you're running out of rope.

What rope?

>I don't know Glenn, are we?

Glenn? And Glenn would be? Hint: Before you try and claim some super
hacking abilities, I'd suggest you research my identify a bit further. No
need to make a real arse out of yourself. You've been wrong twice now.
First about me being located in New Mexico, and Now about the first name,
which is wrong. Tell me something, Did you recently leave AOL? You l33t
haxor you :)

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <69ucll$2...@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com>,

r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX (Rick Joseph) wrote:
>>>No, that "thought" didn't cross my mind. May I be excused, now?

>Now how did you deduce _that_ from my post? Anyway, I've lost
>interest in your juvenile posturing and your delinquent attitude.

My post was concerning viruses are actually copyrighted. You responded
(it's quoted above). That's how I deduced that from your post.

As for my juvenile posturing or my attitude, No one is forcing you to
respond.

[David Harley]

Spanska (Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]) wrote:

: "Annoyance" would be a better term.

: Can't you see that some virus authors does not include a
: destructive routine in their creations?

We know that.

: Can't you see that difference?

Yes. However, the damage done by a virus that isn't intentionally
destructive can be far beyond annoyance. There are some notes on
it in the FAQ.

: not consider myself as a criminal. I repeat for you: between
: "angel" and "devil", there are a lot of possible variations.
: If you don't want to see them, it's your problem.

It's everybody's problem. If virus writers kept their creations
to themselves, no-one would mind their activities a bit.
What -is- annoying is individuals who inflict their handiwork
(malicious or not) on the rest of us and refuse to take any
responsibility for the consequences.

: You can judge us and condamn us if you want. But do not
: lynch us.

Now -there's- a thought. ;-)

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <69usj2$a...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX (Rick Joseph) wrote:
>I have no trouble recalling my previous posts, or following this
>simple-minded thread. You don't want to address the issue of your
>antisocial, irresponsible behavior; nor are you willing to confront
>the fact that you post here about your "krile" virus in a vain attempt
>to impress others.

Get a clue rick. I'm not here to impress anyone. I'm not concerned with
making money or getting reviews (unlike some people).

>I'm simply not impressed.

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <69v0n2$9bk$1...@charlie.lif.icnet.uk>,

har...@europa.lif.icnet.uk (David Harley) wrote:
>It's everybody's problem. If virus writers kept their creations
>to themselves, no-one would mind their activities a bit.
>What -is- annoying is individuals who inflict their handiwork
>(malicious or not) on the rest of us and refuse to take any
>responsibility for the consequences.

Blah.. It's people like you that make (me atleast) want to code more.
I for one cannot stand egotistical people..

>Now -there's- a thought. ;-)

this isn't even worth responding too...

[Skinny Pimp]

On Sun, 18 Jan 98 19:53:25 GMT, juno@raid.x (RAiD [SLAM]) wrote:
<SNIP>

>Did I say anything about it being 'cool'? I do *not* spread them. I offer
>them with source on a www page. If others choose to have them leave that
>safe page and do harm, thats between them. *Not* me. When you can learn the
>difference, it will be a good day indeed.

<SNIP>
Not choosing sides but this defense needs improvement. It's like
saying let me give this 9 year old a loaded weapon, I told him it was
loaded and that it was dangerous but hey what he chooses to do with it
is his responsibility. hehehe

Skinny Pimp
"King of the Playazball"
play...@mindspring.com

[Skinny Pimp]

On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 10:03:58 GMT, Chek...@Cavalry.com (Martin
Overton) wrote:

>"To all VX related:
>Those of you who think my viruses suck, Oh well. I really don't care
>that you think. Those of you who think i'm an a**hole, Good. I don't
>care who or how many scum sucking lamers i infect. I'm doing the
>world a favor removing dipsh*ts like that." ^^^^^^
I thought he said he didn't infect people he just supplied the means.

[David Harley]

Skinny Pimp (play...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 10:03:58 GMT, Chek...@Cavalry.com (Martin
: Overton) wrote:

: >"To all VX related:
: >Those of you who think my viruses suck, Oh well. I really don't care
: >that you think. Those of you who think i'm an a**hole, Good. I don't
: >care who or how many scum sucking lamers i infect. I'm doing the
: >world a favor removing dipsh*ts like that." ^^^^^^
: I thought he said he didn't infect people he just supplied the means.

Let's get the attributions right. Martin didn't say that.

[David Harley]

RAiD [SLAM] (juno@raid.x) wrote:

: >First, you say (here) that your viruses are for educational

: >purposes only. In other writings, you say : please infect
: >as many lamers as possible with my viruses, or words to that
: >effect. In the UK they have a fancy legal term for that,
: >it's called "incitement".

: That's nice and all. But, extraditing me for my viruses would cost your
: government far more then it's worth. Also, you must consider how many
: virus authors remain uncaught. Christopher Pile as so many of you keep
: pointing too was *one* author out of many of us. Statistically, The odds
: are in my favor.

Curiously enough, you have a point. The whole UK thing is a bit of
a red herring, given that the Computer Misuse Act has actually very
rarely resulted in a virus-related conviction. Anyone who's confused
by this argument though, might like to take some of the following
into account. RAiD is excused from this exercise: I already know
that he only reads what he wants to read. This is pretty much all
in the FAQ, BTW: we have been here before (many times....).

* Most American states and most other countries have legislation
which covers unauthorised access and unauthorised modification,
which are the most common grounds for nailing virus writers and
distributors.
* Since you couldn't control the spread of your viruses once you
make them publicly available even if you wanted to, what the law
is in your home state is only part of the story. You could be
breaking the law anywhere one of your viruses infects someone
else's system.
* Most virus writers aren't as noisy as this, and are therefore
harder to find.

Of course, this is all beside the point. Anyone who believes that
anything goes as long as it's legal is not going to respond to
moral or ethical imperatives.

: If this person is a moron as you say, he/she will most likely not handle

: the binary with care, and windup infecting him/herself.

That wouldn't stop them infecting other people, or stop you being
responsible for making the thing available in the first place.

[Ståle Fagerland]

David Harley wrote:
>

> : pointing too was *one* author out of many of us. Statistically, The odds
> : are in my favor.
>
> Curiously enough, you have a point. The whole UK thing is a bit of
> a red herring, given that the Computer Misuse Act has actually very

Point is, the authorities in any country where there might be
legal grounds for action against Mr. Casio ..errr. Raid.. can
initiate such action at any time.

Regards
StF

[Fridrik Skulason]

In <69tmo1$86i$4...@news.usit.net> juno@raid.x (RAiD [SLAM]) writes:

>Actually Rick.. Since even a virus is technically copyrighted material, AV
>should be paying royalties for violating copyright. IE: reverse engineering
>etc.

Note that the laws on reverse engineering differ from one country to another,
and in most European countries reverse engineering for compatibility purposes
is perfectly legal.

Not that it matters much - any virus author trying to sue an anti-virus company
for violating his rights would probably be lauged out of court anywhere....

-frisk

--
Fridrik Skulason Frisk Software International phone: +354-5-617273
Author of F-PROT E-mail: fr...@complex.is fax: +354-5-617274

[Ståle Fagerland]

RAiD [SLAM] wrote:
>
>
> My government has better things to waste money on.

Than making a cautionary example out of you, who has been
screaming very loudly about how extraordinarily infectious
your creations are, how they are all over the net, and how
you're doing the world a favour infecting lamers? Are you
just dim, or is there some kind of inverse-paranoia at work
here?

>
> >Instead, a likely scenario is much more like this:
>
> This may happen where you live, this doesn't happen here.

Actually, that is pretty much SOP for any police anywhere :)).

>
> >Seriously, what do you intend to do _if_ you're someday
> >arrested? Wear a paper bag over your head like Dr. Popp, in
> >the hope the court deems you temporarily insane?
>
> In order to be arrested, I need to be charged with a crime.

Ah. But you know, that's entirely possible.

Regards
StF

[Thomas Bjorseth]

On Sun, 18 Jan 98 19:53:24 GMT, juno@raid.x (RAiD [SLAM]) wrote:

>In article <69tep3$b...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
> r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX (Rick Joseph) wrote:
>>Let's get this straight: In your twisted view of reality you're the
>>victim, and you're not really wasting your time coding malicious
>>software and carelessly spreading it, despite what might hapen to
>>innocent users. You're actually doing the world a service...

>
>Actually Rick.. Since even a virus is technically copyrighted material, AV
>should be paying royalties for violating copyright. IE: reverse engineering
>etc.

Then shouldn't anyone who gets infected pay you for using your
copyrighted software?

>That thought never crossed your mind though did it? :)

Same to you...

Regards,
Thomas B
______________________________________________
Thomas Bjorseth, computer consultant
BI Norwegian School of Management,
E-mail: thomas....@bi.noT (remove T in noT)
Internet: http://www.bi.no

[Ståle Fagerland]

Spanska wrote:
>

> and very sympathic antivirus guys. I know virus writers who
> are respectuous with other people's work

There may be such virus authors. If they never release anything
they write.

> I will not tell you that what i do is good. But really, i do

> not consider myself as a criminal.

I have some questions for you, Spanska. You don't have to
answer them, of course.

1. Are you also known under the handle Guillermito?

2. Did you release infected programs to various usenet groups?

3. Are you a resident of France?

4. Do you think French law would consider you a criminal?

Regards
StF

[David Harley]

Ståle Fagerland (sta...@login.eunet.no) wrote:
: David Harley wrote:
: >

No argument there.

[Thomas Bjorseth]

On Sun, 18 Jan 98 23:13:29 GMT, juno@raid.x (RAiD [SLAM]) wrote:

>In article <69tnnc$reo$1...@chlorine.compulink.co.uk>,
> san...@cix.co.uk ("Graham Cluley") wrote:
>>He wants to be careful about that. I read the full court report from the
>>Black Baron/Christopher Pile case. It seems the main reason he was
>>treated so severely (18 months in prison) was not so much the damage that
>>his viruses had done to a company's data, but that he was inciting others
>>by making his SMEG polymorphic engine available for all and sundry.
>
>That's *one* virus author. Out of *many*. Statistically that's no more
>valid then conducting a virus test with an antivirus, but only using *one*
>virus to test it with.

There's one major difference:
You have clearly stated numerous times that you write viruses. I
guess searching through DejaNews will be proof enough, if someone
decides to go to court. Most virus writers don't tell when they have
written a virus.

As soon as someone can link you and your viruses to any damage made by
them, you may be looking at a sue...

>>Well, the UK has quite a lot to do with you if you or your viruses break
>>the law in this country. The international boundaries matter little
>>between countries which have extradition treaties. For example, Dr
>>Joseph Popp (the AIDS trojan affair) was extradited from the US and ended
>>up in the UK courts. As it happens they decided he was insane and sent
>>it back. However, this didn't stop the Italian courts finding him guilty
>>in absentia.
>
>I am not breaking any laws however. I am using my rights as a citizen where
>I live to publish material I see fit to publish. What others choose to do
>with that material is there business. You certainly don't sue publishers of
>bomb making material, You sue the person who chose to build and/or detonate
>the bomb.

That's not always so.

Chrysler had to pay a considerable amount of money to a couple,
because their son was killed in a car accident involving their
Chrysler. The boy was thrown out the car through the back door, which
opened during the accident.

Chrysler lost the case, even though it was proven that the couple had
run a red light and the son did not have his seat belt on.

Chrysler lost because they knew that the back door could open if
exposed to sudden, hard forces..

>>Certainly I'd want to take indepth legal advice before I did anything
>>which breached the computer crime laws at
>>http://www.ibmpcug.co.uk/~drsolly
>
>Again, Since your 'laws' do *not* apply to me, I see no reason to read more
>of dr solomons drivel.

Well, They do.

>>Have you taken legal advice?
>
>For my residence, I have. And what *I* am doing is *not* illegal. You
>cannot prosecute me based on someone elses decision to use a program.

You could be prosecuted for reckless behaviour, I guess. While writing
a virus may not be a criminal offense, spreading them most likely is.

[fred flintstone]

In article <MPG.f2be8914...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>, gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (George Wenzel) wrote:

>Sure I do. But the number of computers without up-to-date AV protection,
>IMHO, still outnumbers those with current AV. There's still a large
>market out there, whether or not new viruses are written.

The problem with KRiLE is the even the up-to-date AV protection missed it. I
found this out the hard way, pretty nasty bug.

[Graham Cluley]

> >Have you taken legal advice?
>
> For my residence, I have. And what *I* am doing is *not* illegal.
> You cannot prosecute me based on someone elses decision to use
> a program.

Actually if your virus causes damage to someone else's data you are
committing an offence. Our law doesn't care where you are - it cares
where the damage was done.

Anyway - glad to hear you sought legal advice.

--
Graham Cluley, gcl...@uk.drsolomon.com Dr Solomon's AntiVirus (DSAV)
UK Support: sup...@uk.drsolomon.com UK Tel: +44 (0)1296 318700
US Support: sup...@us.drsolomon.com US Tel: 781 273 7400
CompuServe: GO DRSOLOMON Web: http://www.drsolomon.com
NEW:Evaluate Dr Solomon's FindVirus 7.79! Download it from our website

[Graham Cluley]

juno@raid.x writes:
> That's *one* virus author. Out of *many*.

Yes it is just one virus author... ermm, but you're wrong to say "out of
many". Just how many have been taken to court and not ended up in the
clink?

> Statistically that's no more valid then conducting a virus test
> with an antivirus, but only using *one* virus to test it with.

Statistically I think you'll find that out of the number of virus authors
taken to court a large percentage have ended up hanging upside down from
their ankles in the Tower of London.

Anyway, you say you've taken legal advice so I guess you know this.

> >Certainly I'd want to take indepth legal advice before I
> >did anything which breached the computer crime laws at
> >http://www.ibmpcug.co.uk/~drsolly
>
> Again, Since your 'laws' do *not* apply to me,

Eh? Why don't they apply to you? The laws listed there are for various
countries. Let us know where you live and we'll try and find out the
laws which apply to you. Anyroad, it doesn't matter where you live -
it's where your virus ends up that the damage occurs and (potentially)
the law gets broken.

> I see no reason to read more of dr solomons drivel.

The drivel on the laws page wasn't written by anyone at Dr Solomon's.
It's official legal drivel from various countries. But you say you've
sought legal advice so I imagine your solicitor has explained all this to
you.

And of course it's not just computer-related laws you have to consider.
Other laws could have a bearing: criminal damage for example, incitement
to cause damage, etc etc.. but I guess you know this.

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <34c5193d...@news.mindspring.com>,

play...@mindspring.com (Skinny Pimp) wrote:
>Not choosing sides but this defense needs improvement. It's like
>saying let me give this 9 year old a loaded weapon, I told him it was
>loaded and that it was dangerous but hey what he chooses to do with it
>is his responsibility. hehehe

Actually, Your analogy is rather poor. You must have finals or something..

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <69v81i$rhn$1...@banani.complex.is>,

fr...@complex.is (Fridrik Skulason) wrote:
>Note that the laws on reverse engineering differ from one country to
>another, and in most European countries reverse engineering for
>compatibility purposes is perfectly legal.

Ahh. So it's ok if I fire up softice and work with f-prot.exe then?

>Not that it matters much - any virus author trying to sue an anti-virus
>company for violating his rights would probably be lauged out of court
>anywhere....

Funny how the law ignores certain things isn't it?

>-frisk

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <34C335...@login.eunet.no>,

Ståle Fagerland <sta...@login.eunet.no> wrote:
>Point is, the authorities in any country where there might be
>legal grounds for action against Mr. Casio ..errr. Raid.. can
>initiate such action at any time.

According to the law which has jurisdiction where I live, They would need
proof. It's not upto me to find proof, That's upto the accuser.

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <MPG.f2be8914...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>,
gwe...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (George Wenzel) wrote:

>These above two sentences contradict each other. You're justifying your
>virus writing by claiming you're making a market for anti-virus
>companies.

A market yes, which is actually a side-effect of writing a virus. once it's
written, it's only a matter of time before some anti-virus company locates
a sample and develops either a simple detector or a cure in some cases.
With my viruses, the cure seems rare.

>Again, an attempt to justify your virus writing. See above - even if you
>stopped writing viruses, the AV companies would not make less money or
>have fewer sales. There are already more than enough viruses to keep
>them busy for quite a long time.

This I agree with to a certain extent. The reason most viruses survive so
long George is because of user incompetence. Like the real biological
virus, They rely on (for lack of a better term) foolish, ignorant users.

>I don't quite think you caught the analogy - writing viruses corrupts
>peoples computers in the same way that oil corrupts an ocean. Regardless
>of whether your viruses are intentionally destructive or not, people do
>NOT generally want them on their systems - that's why they buy anti-virus
>software.

Your point has been noted George.

>That doesn't quite follow. Most infections in-the-wild are from OLD
>viruses. Whether the new viruses exist or not doesn't change that. The
>old viruses won't "die off" unless everybody switches to an OS that makes
>them inoperable (it's not likely Windows is going to die soon).

OLD viruses which *will* become classified as rare, and finally extinct.
Once the virus meets either of those, the chances of encountering it (aside
from virus collections) is extremely low. And no matter what you say
George, *all* viruses *will* eventually become classed as extinct or rare
at the very least.

Without a new supply, AV *will* eventually have to find a new market for
there warez.

>Please, explain how the old viruses would "die off" if new viruses
>weren't written. Monkey is circa 1991, and it's still infecting systems
>worldwide. Would it have infected any fewer systems if you hadn't
>written new viruses?

Please read above.

>I really find your lack of empathy for the people infected by your
>viruses disturbing. Don't you feel even an ounce of compassion for
>people who say "HELP! my system is infected with this Krile virus!!!"?

George, as a virus author, That's simply a risk. Sometimes accidents do
happen, But that wasn't directly because of me.

>Perhaps, but I'd say your offerings violate the spirit of the laws, if
>not the letter. The reason we have to keep coming up with new laws is
>because people like you do anti-social things and justify them because
>"it isn't against the law".

If the law wasn't so picky and interested in stopping so MANY things
george, I wouldn't be so interested in following it to the letter.

>Yes, and that's commendable. But the fact remains that people get
>infected with your "potentially harmful" viruses.

Yes, I suppose some do. Carelessness or someone deciding to have fun.

>Sure I do. But the number of computers without up-to-date AV protection,
>IMHO, still outnumbers those with current AV. There's still a large
>market out there, whether or not new viruses are written.

This is true george, But how long has it been since someone reported being
infected by the brain or ambulance virus? Those are rare now, and usually
can't be easily located, except for virus collections.

>I don't really expect to convince you to stop distributing your viruses.
>If you're like most virus writers, you'll grow out of the hobby
>eventually.

Perhaps. For every virus writer who quits the hobby, Theres always another
to take his/her place.

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <69v9cf$mel$2...@charlie.lif.icnet.uk>,

har...@europa.lif.icnet.uk (David Harley) wrote:
>Curiously enough, you have a point. The whole UK thing is a bit of
>a red herring, given that the Computer Misuse Act has actually very

>rarely resulted in a virus-related conviction. Anyone who's confused
>by this argument though, might like to take some of the following
>into account. RAiD is excused from this exercise: I already know
>that he only reads what he wants to read. This is pretty much all
>in the FAQ, BTW: we have been here before (many times....).

No surprise.

>* Most American states and most other countries have legislation
> which covers unauthorised access and unauthorised modification,
> which are the most common grounds for nailing virus writers and
> distributors.

Again. I must say... Since *I* am *not* infecting people, You or anyone
else would have a hard costly case. It would be upto *you* to prove
otherwise, I merely have to sit there and say "no".

>* Since you couldn't control the spread of your viruses once you
> make them publicly available even if you wanted to, what the law
> is in your home state is only part of the story. You could be
> breaking the law anywhere one of your viruses infects someone
> else's system.

No. Whoever sent the virus to that persons system would be breaking the
law. Not me.

>* Most virus writers aren't as noisy as this, and are therefore
> harder to find.

I see. I'm being noisy because I dare to post to usenet about them? and I
dare to disagree with the holy anti-virus people?

>Of course, this is all beside the point. Anyone who believes that
>anything goes as long as it's legal is not going to respond to
>moral or ethical imperatives.

Morals nor ethics have anything to do with the law. Anti-virus people
rarely have morals, Why should the VX side?

>That wouldn't stop them infecting other people, or stop you being
>responsible for making the thing available in the first place.

Actually, heh. it would. You don't sue a gun manafucturer just because
someone decides to take one and go on a shooting spree.

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <34C338...@login.eunet.no>,

Ståle Fagerland <sta...@login.eunet.no> wrote:
>Than making a cautionary example out of you, who has been
>screaming very loudly about how extraordinarily infectious
>your creations are, how they are all over the net, and how
>you're doing the world a favour infecting lamers? Are you
>just dim, or is there some kind of inverse-paranoia at work
>here?

You must be under the impression that I will go quietly into the
night..Which is, heh, *not* the case. I could if needbe have enough legal
defense to make the case not worth the money the government would spend,
nor it's time. Don't you love lawyers? :)

>Actually, that is pretty much SOP for any police anywhere :)).

if they want a lawsuit, then they arrest me without a reason. And I sue.
And I get paid for the hassle.

>Ah. But you know, that's entirely possible.

Your blowing smoke, again.

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <34c84355.10222649@news>,

thomas....@bi.noT (Thomas Bjorseth) wrote:
>Then shouldn't anyone who gets infected pay you for using your
>copyrighted software?

Not in my case no. Since my viruses are freeware. I retain the copyright of
course, but there is no fee. Do not confuse me with Doren in the future
please.

[Graham Cluley]

> The problem with KRiLE is the even the up-to-date AV
> protection missed it. I found this out the hard way,
> pretty nasty bug.

You should complain to the virus's author and distributor.

[David Harley]

Rick Joseph (r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX) wrote:
: In addition, in the U.S. one can be taken to trial and prosecuted in a
: civil case -- even if one were already proclaimed innocent in a
: criminal court.

Good point. Forgot to mention civil action.

[Ståle Fagerland]

RAiD [SLAM] wrote:
>

> if they want a lawsuit, then they arrest me without a reason. And I sue.
> And I get paid for the hassle.
>
> >Ah. But you know, that's entirely possible.
>
> Your blowing smoke, again.

:).

You have, by your own screaming and ranting in public, already
supplied reason. And smoke often bring rangers, just as blood
in the water brings sharks. You think there are sharks in these
waters, boy?

Regards
StF

[David Harley]

Graham Cluley (san...@cix.co.uk) wrote:

: Statistically I think you'll find that out of the number of virus authors

: taken to court a large percentage have ended up hanging upside down from
: their ankles in the Tower of London.

The ankles? They're the lucky ones. ;-)

[Gene Wirchenko]

har...@europa.lif.icnet.uk (David Harley) wrote:

>Ståle Fagerland (sta...@login.eunet.no) wrote:
>: RAiD [SLAM] wrote:
>: >
>: > And I stand by that statement.
>
>: Good. You want to bet someone from the UK is not reading this
>: statement? If they're not, maybe you're safe ;>.
>
>I wouldn't make any bets on that particular probability. ;-)

Why not? Don't you want a sure win?

>--
>David Harley \ | / alt.comp.virus FAQ
>D.Ha...@icrf.icnet.uk \ | / & Anti-Virus Web Page

^^
Hi, I'm a clue.

>Support & Security Analyst \ | / Folk London On-Line gig-list
>Imperial Cancer Research Fund ____\|/____ http://webworlds.co.uk/dharley/

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

C Pronunciation Guide:
y=x++; "wye equals ex plus plus semicolon"
x=x++; "ex equals ex doublecross semicolon"

[David Harley]

Gene Wirchenko (ge...@vip.net) wrote:

: >: Good. You want to bet someone from the UK is not reading this

: >: statement? If they're not, maybe you're safe ;>.
: >
: >I wouldn't make any bets on that particular probability. ;-)

: Why not? Don't you want a sure win?

Just giving a little impartial advice. ;-)

: >D.Ha...@icrf.icnet.uk \ | /
: ^^

: Hi, I'm a clue.

Hi. I know one or two people round here who're in need of you.......

--
David Harley \ | / alt.comp.virus FAQ
D.Ha...@icrf.icnet.uk \ | / & Anti-Virus Web Page

[Doren Rosenthal]

Graham Cluley (san...@cix.co.uk) wrote:
:
: > The problem with KRiLE is the even the up-to-date AV

: > protection missed it. I found this out the hard way,
: > pretty nasty bug.
:
: You should complain to the virus's author and distributor.

That's the problem some less reputable virus authors. Lack of technical
support.

For those users of the virus I put out on the ASP CD rom, there was an
ombudsman statement to back it up.

Doren Rosenthal

Http://slonet.org/~doren/

[Graham Cluley]

David Harley writes:
> Rick Joseph (r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX) wrote:
> : In addition, in the U.S. one can be taken to trial and prosecuted
> : in a civil case -- even if one were already proclaimed innocent
> : in a criminal court.
>
> Good point. Forgot to mention civil action.

Rick, David - it's irrelevant. Juno says he has taken legal advice. No
doubt his legal advisor would have covered all these areas with him.

I'm sure his legal advisor would have taken all of this into account.

--
Graham Cluley, gcl...@uk.drsolomon.com Dr Solomon's AntiVirus (DSAV)
UK Support: sup...@uk.drsolomon.com UK Tel: +44 (0)1296 318700
US Support: sup...@us.drsolomon.com US Tel: 781 273 7400
CompuServe: GO DRSOLOMON Web: http://www.drsolomon.com

Dr Solomon AntiVirus Win3/Win95 updates:http://antivirus.drsolomon.com

[Graham Cluley]

Doren Rosenthal writes:
> Just a moment guys. I run a legitimate engineering company here and I
> respect the laws.

Even the Swiss laws?

[Tarkan Yetiser]

In article <6a06r4$q...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX says...

> In article <69v9cf$mel$2...@charlie.lif.icnet.uk>,
> har...@europa.lif.icnet.uk (David Harley) wrote:
> >Of course, this is all beside the point. Anyone who believes that
> >anything goes as long as it's legal is not going to respond to
> >moral or ethical imperatives.
>

> In addition, in the U.S. one can be taken to trial and prosecuted in a
> civil case -- even if one were already proclaimed innocent in a
> criminal court.

You got it right! Ask OJ;-)

--
Regards

Tarkan Yetiser
VDSARG
tyetiser AT vdsarg.com
http://www.vdsarg.com

"The marketing of technology to confused consumers undermines
those who are using technology to address real needs."
D. Rushkoff

[Tarkan Yetiser]

In article <34C3A5...@login.eunet.no>, sta...@login.eunet.no
says...

> RAiD [SLAM] wrote:
> >
>
> > if they want a lawsuit, then they arrest me without a reason. And I sue.
> > And I get paid for the hassle.
> >
> > >Ah. But you know, that's entirely possible.
> >
> > Your blowing smoke, again.
>

> You have, by your own screaming and ranting in public, already

This kid is apparently confused. Nothing more. A lot of bright
teenagers go thru this sort of thing.

> supplied reason. And smoke often bring rangers, just as blood
> in the water brings sharks. You think there are sharks in these
> waters, boy?

Hunted any whales lately;-)

[Doren Rosenthal]

Graham Cluley (san...@cix.co.uk) wrote:

: Doren Rosenthal writes:
: > Just a moment guys. I run a legitimate engineering company here and I
: > respect the laws.
:
: Even the Swiss laws?

I export to Switzerland all the time. I checked with my local officials
and it turns out I even get a special discount on postage and customes I
wasn't aware of. US government loves little guys like me who export and
have been very supportive.

Doren Rosenthal

Author of "Virus Simulator" http://slonet.org/~doren/

[Bruce P. Burrell]

Spanska <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> L DeHaan:
> >Once you release your darling little creatures into the world,
> >they cause damage in many ways.

> "Annoyance" would be a better term.

Depends on how many infections one must remove. Also, some viruses
cause unintentional damage (e.g., old versions of WordPerfect had a
spoofed EXE header, so some viruses would trash file data). Then, of
course, there are all the viruses that cause damage on purpose.

Note: I'm not talking about any specific virus; I'm speaking generally,
as i think Larry was.

> Can't you see that some virus authors does not include a
> destructive routine in their creations?

I agree that not all viruses are destructive INTENTIONALLY. One can
certainly argue that they are always destructive in some way, though.

> Can't you see that difference?

> There are not good boys on one side and bad boys on another
> side. It's not as simple. If you see life in black and white,
> you're wrong. I know virus writers who are fucking idiots,

> and very sympathic antivirus guys. I know virus writers who

> are respectuous with other people's work, and stupid antivirus
> people posting tons of liars here.

[Not as an argument, but I'd be interested to know who you consider to
be "stupid antivirus people", and why (preferably with examples).

> >They force corporations to spend substantial sums of money
> >for anti-virus software and additional staffing to prevent
> >virus attacks on their computer systems

> Maybe it's a positive thing, maybe "annoyant" viruses are a
> chance for compagnies.

> Imagine a compagny hit by my Elvira, or Casio's Krile. They
> are not destructive. So they will buy a good AV solution
> for their network. And next time, when a very bad virus will
> try to infect the compagny, they will be protected. What's
> the best? A virus that animates a 3D text on screen on some
> computers or a virus that formats all network drives?

1. If viruses didn't exist in the first place, that would be moot.

2. What if the company got hit by the nasty virus first? Ooops;
too late.

3. If your viruses really had the effect you propose, shouldn't they
have a payload that shouts "Your antivirus measures aren't
working!!", or something like that?

4. I agree that some viruses are nastier than others, but that doesn't
make the less nasty ones a Good Thing.

> I will not tell you that what i do is good. But really, i do
> not consider myself as a criminal.

Whether or not you are depends on where you live and what laws apply.
Personally, though, I would prefer that you devote your efforts in other
ways.

> I repeat for you: between
> "angel" and "devil", there are a lot of possible variations.

Agree here.

> If you don't want to see them, it's your problem.

> You can judge us and condamn us if you want. But do not
> lynch us.

Yeah -- I think I agree that lynching is a little excessive,
particularly when one compares viruses to the really nasty things that
happen in the world (e.g., Algeria, Rwanda, etc.)

> >May God have mercy on your souls.

> I don't believe in God. I believe in human beings.

Fair enough, but it would be nice if you were kinder to your fellow man
by not making one more headache for him.

-BPB

[Bruce P. Burrell]

RAiD [SLAM] <juno@raid.x> wrote:
> In article <69v0n2$9bk$1...@charlie.lif.icnet.uk>,
> har...@europa.lif.icnet.uk (David Harley) wrote:
> >It's everybody's problem. If virus writers kept their creations
> >to themselves, no-one would mind their activities a bit.
> >What -is- annoying is individuals who inflict their handiwork
> >(malicious or not) on the rest of us and refuse to take any
> >responsibility for the consequences.

> Blah.. It's people like you that make (me atleast) want to code more.
> I for one cannot stand egotistical people..

Ummm, I don't see what in David's post is egotistical -- to me, it
looks like two valid sentences. Would you be willing to go into more
detail?

-BPB

[Ståle Fagerland]

Tarkan Yetiser wrote:
>

>
> Hunted any whales lately;-)

Hehe. I'd prefer hunting whalers, actually.

Regards
StF

[Bruce P. Burrell]

Doren Rosenthal <do...@slonet.org> wrote:
[snip]
> You'll want to direct your charges with the San Luis Obispo police
> department. For the guy in charge, ask for Sargent Pete Hubbard. You won't
> need to describe my program to him though, they are registered users.

All the more reason to describe it to him, since he has certainly be
misled.

-BPB

[David Harley]

Rick Joseph (r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX) wrote:
: In article <6a0mfc$qp8$1...@chlorine.compulink.co.uk>,
: san...@cix.co.uk ("Graham Cluley") wrote:

: >Rick, David - it's irrelevant. Juno says he has taken legal advice. No

: >doubt his legal advisor would have covered all these areas with him.
: >
: >I'm sure his legal advisor would have taken all of this into account.

: Quite right, of course. Do we need to send you a pair of socks or
: anything, Graham? I have an extra khaki-colored sock here...I think
: it's the left-footed one - David, do you have any right-footed ones?

I have some very useful khaki socks with a hole at either end so they
can be worn on either foot, and I'm happy to donate one to a good
cause. I'm not sure about colour-matching, though: after all, I've
worn them for a few years (though not continuously). Tell you what,
I'll throw in a complimentary copy of the Folk London gig list at
no extra charge.

[Mike Dimmick]

In article <6a07q6$j4$1...@charlie.lif.icnet.uk>,

har...@europa.lif.icnet.uk (David Harley) writes:
> Rick Joseph (r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX) wrote:

>: In addition, in the U.S. one can be taken to trial and prosecuted in a

>: civil case -- even if one were already proclaimed innocent in a
>: criminal court.
>

> Good point. Forgot to mention civil action.

I recall a couple of cases recently when one American Football player
turned actor was first found not guilty and then guilty of the same
crime...

--
Mike Dimmick <dimm...@aston.ac.uk> http://www.aston.ac.uk/~dimmicmj/
Chairman, Aston Orienteering Klub http://www.aston.ac.uk/~dimmicmj/aok/
Status Quo FAQ maintainer, alt.music.status-quo & mailing list,
FAQ at ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/news.answers/music/status-quo/faq

[David Harley]

Rick Joseph (r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX) wrote:

: >worn them for a few years (though not continuously). Tell you what,

: >I'll throw in a complimentary copy of the Folk London gig list at
: >no extra charge.

: I hope you're paying for the shipping -- how much does 1gig of London
: folks weigh?

I can probably get the whole London folk scene into a 40-seater
bus, if I use a lossy compression algorithm: or is that a no-great-lossy
algorithm?

[Kurt Wismer]

RAiD [SLAM] (juno@raid.x) wrote:
: In article <69v0n2$9bk$1...@charlie.lif.icnet.uk>,
: har...@europa.lif.icnet.uk (David Harley) wrote:
: >It's everybody's problem. If virus writers kept their creations
: >to themselves, no-one would mind their activities a bit.
: >What -is- annoying is individuals who inflict their handiwork
: >(malicious or not) on the rest of us and refuse to take any
: >responsibility for the consequences.

: Blah.. It's people like you that make (me atleast) want to code more.
: I for one cannot stand egotistical people..

funny, nothing in the above quote demonstrates that david has an inflated
ego...

say, you aren't throwing words around in spite of not knowing what
the mean just to look cool and educated are you?
--
"it's a dog eat dog world and i'm wearing milkbone underwear"

[Bruce P. Burrell]

Spanska <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> Bruce P. Burrell wrote:

> some intelligent things without this paternalistic or agressive
> language that others use. I don't wanna fight in this group. I
> just wanna quietly discuss with people who does not share my
> point of view.

Thanks -- I think that "fighting words" aren't likely to change any
opinions. Of course, the same may be true of reasoned argument, but at
least it's more civilized. [I reserve my fights for FDISK/Mumble. ;-)]

> >Also, some viruses cause unintentional damage

> Of course. It's very difficult to avoid that. Best thing to do is
> a long period of test with a lot of different computers/programs
> to see if there are some incompatibilities. Not easy, but i always
> try to reduce the possible damages.

That's better than not testing, but wouldn't it be even better not to
let your creations out of quarantine? I have no objection to you writing
whatever you want to write -- it's when the innocent folks get injured
that I get concerned. [Better yet if you were to write useful programs,
e.g., perhaps a game that uses your graphics skills. Might even make some
money for you!]

> >I agree that not all viruses are destructive INTENTIONALLY. One can
> >certainly argue that they are always destructive in some way, though.

> There are some levels of "destruction". You cannot say that, for
> example, definitively wiping all .doc files on a drive and change
> some things in memory so that Word no longer functions are two
> equivalent levels of destruction.

Oh, of course.

> That's the same whith hacking. Some crack protections of a server,
> and the day after phone to the root to explain the weakness. Or just
> change a web page to graphically sign their victory. I like this
> sort of hacking, and surely some day i will test it. Some others
> crack protections and wipe all datas, change all passwords, etc...
> Two different levels of damaging.

Well, damage is a continuum, I suspect. I think we're agreeing that
some damage is worse than others, and that all viruses create some level
of damage. If so, then we've both made our points.

> >[Not as an argument, but I'd be interested to know who you consider to
> >be "stupid antivirus people", and why (preferably with examples).

> Geeezzz... I need some diplomacy at this point.

Well, you could always have used private email. :-) My address is in
the clear.

> I consider stupid AV people those who threaten guys asking for viruses,

I don't recall threats, though I've certainly seen posts that would
appear to try to discourage virus exchange.

> those who denounce kids posting old viruses,

I've seen these, but I guess I don't consider that a stupid thing to
do.

> those who don't wanna talk with virus writers.

To each his or her own -- but I agree that dialog helps. Of course,
form my perspective I hope that it will convince virus writers and
distributors to stop (distributing; don't care about writing w/o
distributing) sooner than they would otherwise.

> This is the best way to keep teenagers coding destructive things. Maybe
> it's just a calculated stupidity, because it's good for business.

Maybe, but I think the AV industry would last for a good long time even
if no virus were ever written again. And stay profitable.

> I consider stupid AV people those who don't want to believe Stormbringer
> when he say he doesn't want to write viruses anymore.

I haven't seen folks say that -- though I -have- seen then say that
they don't want to hire him in an AV company. I don't consider this
latter stance stupid; in fact, i think it's probably the Right Thing. I
-do- think Mike can do good things in the AV field without being employed
by an AV company, though, just as I and others try to do.

> I consider stupid (and dangerous) AV people those claiming their
> product detects 100% of all past, present and futur viruses.

Agree 100%!!! Haven't seen many such claims in these parts recently,
though.

> I consider stupid AV people those judging the quality and utility
> of a program through the personality of the author (yes, i'm thinking
> to some responses on Doren or Zvi posts).

Sure. But it is fair to modify one's opinion of another based on what
is posted, no? Of course, it shouldn't be the -only- criterion if other
data are available.

> I consider stupid AV people those comparing the death of some datas
> with the death of humans ("a loaded gun", you know).

Ok. I take that more as an alliteration than a comparison of level --
I don't think many folks view computer viruses as having the power of
biological viruses like Ebola, or equate the damage they do with mass
genocide.

Thanks for making the effort to provide your list!

> > 2. What if the company got hit by the nasty virus first? Ooops;
> > too late.

> That can occurs, but that will never be with one of my viruses. What
> can i say more? I'm not responsible for all virus authors.

No, of course you're not. My point was that I don't think your virus
(or any virus, for that matter) really serves the function you were
suggesting.

> > 3. If your viruses really had the effect you propose, shouldn't they
> > have a payload that shouts "Your antivirus measures aren't
> > working!!", or something like that?

> This is a very good idea. I had more or less the same for a previous
> payload, but finally prefered something more graphical and less
> explicit. Maybe in my next virus i will put something like that.
> To design such a "pedagogic virus" is a good idea, really.

But it would be better yet to write code that has pretty graphics, but
isn't a virus. While the graphics are displaying, the program could
search for infections....

> > 4. I agree that some viruses are nastier than others, but that doesn't
> > make the less nasty ones a Good Thing.

> Agree. I annoy people, i know it. I do not code "Good Thing" as you
> said. I can think about the implications of what i do.

Ok. At least you're thinking; that gives me hope.

> But you know,
> sometimes the desire of experimentation is stronger than your morals.
> I wanted to know how easy it was to code a virus. I tested. I wanted
> to know how easy it was to spread a virus in the wild. I tested. And
> clearly, it's very easy. Coding a good game, a good utility or a
> big demo, diffuse it and gain some fame with it is certainly much
> harder.

Certainly -- but, one would hope, more rewarding as well.

> >Personally, though, I would prefer that you devote your efforts in other
> >ways.

> Sure. But i always liked to experiment forbidden things. The
> excitation when you cross the frontier between what is moral (or
> legal) and what is not. Sometimes, these forbidden things just
> damage my health or my neurons. In the case of my viruses, they
> annoy people.

Well, perhaps you'll stop annoying people one day, as did Stormbringer.
May it be sooner rather than later!

> >Yeah -- I think I agree that lynching is a little excessive,
> >particularly when one compares viruses to the really nasty things that
> >happen in the world (e.g., Algeria, Rwanda, etc.)

> I totally agree, as i said before.

Cool. I wish more virus writers were willing to have reasoned debate,
and I hope that one day you'll be on my side of the argument.

-BPB

[|THC|]

Spanska wrote:

>
>
> That's the same whith hacking. Some crack protections of a server,
> and the day after phone to the root to explain the weakness. Or just
> change a web page to graphically sign their victory. I like this
> sort of hacking, and surely some day i will test it. Some others
> crack protections and wipe all datas, change all passwords, etc...
> Two different levels of damaging.

Ok, off topic I know, but just feel the need to clarify one thing. The two
things you describe here has nothing to do with eachother. The first one you
describe is what a 'hacker' will do. Find the weakness, maybe in some cases
fetch the information he/she wants, and then notify the sys-admin about the
weakness.

The other one you describe is not a 'hacker'. A hacker will NOT damage the
system intentionally. That is something done by crackers, who usually don't
know half of what a 'hacker' does. I do not mean this as a form of critisism,
as what you've done is quite normal. You simply forgot to distinguish between
'hackers' and crackers.

Take care
|THC|

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <6a07uh$j4$2...@charlie.lif.icnet.uk>,

har...@europa.lif.icnet.uk (David Harley) wrote:
>Graham Cluley (san...@cix.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: Statistically I think you'll find that out of the number of virus
authors
>: taken to court a large percentage have ended up hanging upside down from
>: their ankles in the Tower of London.
>
>The ankles? They're the lucky ones. ;-)

the original post never showed up here. Would someone be so kind as to post
it again?

[RAiD [SLAM]]

In article <6a094d$q...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX (Rick Joseph) wrote:
>But you might learn a thing or two about responsibility for damages in
>a civil suit.

Again Rick. I offer my viruses for educational purposes only. I make no
attempt to hide the fact or otherwise decieve the user about the binary.

if someone decides to remove my text file, thats there business. Not mine.
responsibility only goes so far.

[Ståle Fagerland]

RAiD [SLAM] wrote:

> if someone decides to remove my text file, thats there business. Not mine.

You mean the textfile with all that stuff about not caring
how many lamers you infect?

Sheesh. You really are a stupid creature :).

And just as an aside to Tarkan, who thinks you are just going
thru some confused phase just now:

This kid has been at it since '95, at least - back then it was
trojans, but already then it was incitement to trash 'lamers'.

Educational programs my ass. You need some serious help :)).

Regards
StF

[Ståle Fagerland]

Spanska wrote:
>

> "angel" and "devil", there are a lot of possible variations.

> If you don't want to see them, it's your problem.

Angel? Devil? Spanska, you are neither. You're a worm.

Anyway, I asked you a question. To be precise, I asked you
four questions. Are you going to answer, or will you wriggle
away?

Regards
StF