On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:25:32 +0200
David Naylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
Today I read an article describing how my government had lost
ZAR200 000 000 from fraud. This is just under $25 000 000. The
article credited this loss largely due to the use of spyware.
My question is
David
It is my understanding that since 1995 all computers must have a
hardware back door that permits undetectable access by the government to
the computer. This capability can be implemented using System
Monitor(Maintenance) Mode which is built into all x86 computers now. It
would appear
How do you know that the bios has not been reflashed by a virus,
trojan, or rootkit?
For that matter, how do you know that the *original* bios was free
of interesting non-essentials? It's been a few years since bios
were delivered in socketed ROMs/EPROMs (readable by a standalone
device,
It is my understanding that since 1995 all computers must have
a hardware back door that permits undetectable access by the
government to the computer. This capability can be implemented
using System Monitor(Maintenance) Mode which is built into all
x86 computers now. It would
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 01:03:00AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you know that the bios has not been reflashed by a virus,
trojan, or rootkit?
For that matter, how do you know that the *original* bios was free
of interesting non-essentials? It's been a few years since bios
were
of interesting non-essentials? It's been a few years since bios
were delivered in socketed ROMs/EPROMs (readable by a standalone
device, independently of their own operation) or since sources were
typically published :)
now they are standard devices too, just not socketed, you may unsolder and
On Wednesday 11 June 2008 23:47:43 you wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:25:32PM +0200, David Naylor wrote:
Hi All,
Today I read an article describing how my government had lost ZAR200 000
000 from fraud. This is just under $25 000 000. The article credited
this loss largely due to
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:25:32PM +0200, David Naylor wrote:
Hi All,
Today I read an article describing how my government had lost ZAR200 000 000
from fraud. This is just under $25 000 000. The article credited this loss
largely due to the use of spyware.
My question is how secure
On Jun 12, 2008, at 8:19 AM, David Naylor wrote:
I think this argument is rather mute, just because there are no
programs
exploiting security vulnerabilities does not been there are not
vulnerabilities,
But it is far from moot if you are interested in the actual threat
against your
But it is far from moot if you are interested in the actual threat against
your system. In a sense, using a less popular OS is a form of security by
obscurity which is not to be heavily relied on, but still it does make a
real, practical, difference in the case that you described.
FreeBSD
On Thursday 12 June 2008 18:43:40 you wrote:
On Jun 12, 2008, at 8:19 AM, David Naylor wrote:
I think this argument is rather mute, just because there are no
programs
exploiting security vulnerabilities does not been there are not
vulnerabilities,
But it is far from moot if you are
On Jun 12, 2008, at 3:24 PM, David Naylor wrote:
This is a general enquiry. What had sparked my interest in this
subject is
the above mentioned article. In this case it is a workstation used
to access
and manage account and cash flows. The threat would be anyone
gaining access
to
Hi All,
Today I read an article describing how my government had lost ZAR200 000 000
from fraud. This is just under $25 000 000. The article credited this loss
largely due to the use of spyware.
My question is how secure is FreeBSD (including KDE, GNOME and XFCE) to
attacks, including
from fraud. This is just under $25 000 000. The article credited this loss
largely due to the use of spyware.
My question is how secure is FreeBSD (including KDE, GNOME and XFCE) to
do not include that programs to FreeBSD. they are not it's part. it's just
few of thousand programs that can
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:25:32PM +0200, David Naylor wrote:
Hi All,
Today I read an article describing how my government had lost ZAR200 000 000
from fraud. This is just under $25 000 000. The article credited this loss
largely due to the use of spyware.
My question is how secure
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:25:32PM +0200, David Naylor wrote:
Hi All,
Today I read an article describing how my government had lost ZAR200 000 000
from fraud. This is just under $25 000 000. The article credited this loss
largely due to the use of spyware.
My question is how secure
[mailed and posted]
On Jun 11, 2008, at 4:03 PM, YANSWBVCG wrote:
It is my understanding that since 1995 all computers must have a
hardware back door that permits undetectable access by the
government to
the computer. This capability can be implemented using System
Monitor(Maintenance) Mode
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 06:53:18PM -0500, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
[mailed and posted]
On Jun 11, 2008, at 4:03 PM, YANSWBVCG wrote:
It is my understanding that since 1995 all computers must have a
hardware back door that permits undetectable access by the government to
the computer. This
On Jun 11, 2008, at 7:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A relatively new security threat known as 'The Blue Pill', based upon
hardware, is a class of virtual rootkits that can silently take over
Intel and AMD systems. A good site to visit to learn about these
virtual
rootkits is
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 07:45:51PM -0500, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
On Jun 11, 2008, at 7:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A relatively new security threat known as 'The Blue Pill', based upon
hardware, is a class of virtual rootkits that can silently take over
Intel and AMD systems. A good site
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:45:51 -0500
Jeffrey Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 11, 2008, at 7:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A relatively new security threat known as 'The Blue Pill', based
upon hardware, is a class of virtual rootkits that can silently
take over Intel and AMD
On Jun 11, 2008, at 8:08 PM, cpghost wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:45:51 -0500
Jeffrey Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First it should consume memory. A very complete test of memory
through a modified memtest should be able to detect whether system
reported memory is accurate.
What if
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 08:51:16PM -0500, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
On Jun 11, 2008, at 8:08 PM, cpghost wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:45:51 -0500
Jeffrey Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First it should consume memory. A very complete test of memory
through a modified memtest should be
On Jun 11, 2008, at 9:05 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 08:51:16PM -0500, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
The next time I reboot the one server I've got with an
SVM capable processor I'm going to disconnect the power (to make
sure that
I'm getting a real reboot instead of a
24 matches
Mail list logo
