Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
Apparently Apple has known about this flaw in BSD Unix for around 5 months. Lots of other UNIX based platforms and applications have patched it and Apple is one of the last hold outs. Bad on them. Good thing that they aren't the OS from Redmond with the giant 'Kick Me" sign on their back. -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
You got me...I figured all the money I've tossed at Apple would hide me. On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:01 AM, t.piwowar wrote: > On Jan 13, 2010, at 11:50 PM, mike wrote: > >> Again missing the point.. >> > > No I get your point. You are an attack dog and apologist for M$. I don't > expect your posts to make sense. > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
On Jan 13, 2010, at 11:50 PM, mike wrote: Again missing the point.. No I get your point. You are an attack dog and apologist for M$. I don't expect your posts to make sense. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
Again missing the point.. On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 6:30 PM, t.piwowar wrote: > On Jan 13, 2010, at 11:37 AM, mike wrote: > >> I'm wondering how this could be? Tom said Apple writes perfect code... >> > > Mike still can't tell the difference between a vulnerability and an > exploit. > > No need to hyperventilate. Secunia rates this a 2... > > http://secunia.com/advisories/38066/ > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
On Jan 13, 2010, at 11:37 AM, mike wrote: I'm wondering how this could be? Tom said Apple writes perfect code... Mike still can't tell the difference between a vulnerability and an exploit. No need to hyperventilate. Secunia rates this a 2... http://secunia.com/advisories/38066/ * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
http://www.dailytech.com/Code%20Posted%20Online%20Takes%20Advantage%20of%20Mac%20OS%20X%20Flaw/article17357.htm I'm wondering how this could be? Tom said Apple writes perfect code...there are no errors. Looks like everyone writes a defective os...just like I said. And this security flaw was alerted to Apple in June...and they still haven't fixed it.So with defective software out there...why again is OS X safe from attacks? Could it be because it's such a small target? http://securityreason.com/securityalert/6932 I like the part that says 'victim interaction required: No' On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 12:13 PM, One Man wrote: > One word: Skylab > > Back when M$ was creating this mess I was yelling about it almost every > month and contrasting it with what others were doing. M$ built a system > where everything could link to everything else ... > > > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > > > > > > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 12:59 PM, tjpa wrote: > I think this was done because M$ thought it would make them more > money, but it put all their customers in peril. The unhappiness continues. I am sure that you are correct. The approach that Microsoft applied was nothing but capitalism as usual. The same thing took place in God knows how many different businesses prior to the existence of Microsoft, and continues to this day. We all hear constant refrains for less and less oversight of every sort when it comes to businesses even as those same people demand that the general populous be subjected to ever more scrutiny and policing. This means that corporations, with help from authorities, can continue to get away with their shenanigans, and if the peasants eventually try to grab their pitchforks and assault the walls of injustice, they can be severely dealt with. The corporate bosses will be amusedly viewing all of this on TVs and tablet computers in their Swiss chalets while barking orders to their security people over their satellite phones. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
One word: Skylab Back when M$ was creating this mess I was yelling about it almost every month and contrasting it with what others were doing. M$ built a system where everything could link to everything else ... * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
On Jan 9, 2010, at 12:32 PM, John Duncan Yoyo wrote: My point all along has been EVERY company should take that responsibility. M$ is a bigger target and they can be made to look like bigger idiots. It shouldn't be too much of problem for them to fund the work. Back when M$ was creating this mess I was yelling about it almost every month and contrasting it with what others were doing. M$ built a system where everything could link to everything else and they did it at a time when it was already obvious that computer viruses were going to be a problem. I think this was done because M$ thought it would make them more money, but it put all their customers in peril. The unhappiness continues. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 9:47 PM, mike wrote: > Except windows isn't any more or less defective than OS X. Both of you > keep > bypassing that fact. If you don't believe the initial premise that both > OS's are defective, than there is no more reason to continue the rest of > the > discussion. I base my opinion on security experts, I'm also not in any way > saying that out in the world you are in danger of trojans or viruses if you > run OSX. OS X is never shown to be defective (except in all the security > updates released for it) because their footprint is so small there is no > reason for those after money to go after OSX. If the main reason for > trojans/viruses these days is to gain control of as many systems as > possible, no enterprising black hat would even look at OS X. But, you put > OS X on a level playing field with windows and linux, and tell your white > hat security experts, take down *any* of the three first and you get some > cool cash...and OS X is taken down first for several years with ease that > clearly shows defective issues in the OS. On top of that, the security > guys > go on to say they went after OS X because it was the easiest of three. > > So the real question is, if two companies release a defective product...but > only one is used so much that it SHOWS it's defective nature...are they > both > defective or just the one? > > My point all along has been EVERY company should take that responsibility. M$ is a bigger target and they can be made to look like bigger idiots. It shouldn't be too much of problem for them to fund the work. -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
Again not addressing the core issue...no surprise there. On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 9:00 PM, t.piwowar wrote: > On Jan 8, 2010, at 9:47 PM, mike wrote: > >> Except windows isn't any more or less defective than OS X >> > > Nobody with any experience with computers would agree to that. If all you > are going to do is spout propaganda you are wasting our time. Just go over > to the Wildlist site and read the long list of active Windows viruses. Vs. > OS X with zero. > > http://www.wildlist.org/WildList/200911.htm > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
On Jan 8, 2010, at 9:47 PM, mike wrote: Except windows isn't any more or less defective than OS X Nobody with any experience with computers would agree to that. If all you are going to do is spout propaganda you are wasting our time. Just go over to the Wildlist site and read the long list of active Windows viruses. Vs. OS X with zero. http://www.wildlist.org/WildList/200911.htm * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
I figure any discourse lets other users know who we are for good and bad. I'm not too caught up..during the last few exchanges I've also built a new computer for my wife (smokin deal at fry's electronics..) installed the OS and lost three games of war with a kid. On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Tony B wrote: > Actually, we have a rule on our forum "No back and forths. Don't argue > with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference, > and at best you'll win an argument with an idiot.". While I'm not > going to take sides or go as far as actually calling anyone an idiot, > I *will* say that you have let Tom goad you into something. He _can_ > be the troll when he wants to be, and you've let yourself get caught > up in it. > > > > So the real question is, if two companies release a defective product... > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
Actually, we have a rule on our forum "No back and forths. Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference, and at best you'll win an argument with an idiot.". While I'm not going to take sides or go as far as actually calling anyone an idiot, I *will* say that you have let Tom goad you into something. He _can_ be the troll when he wants to be, and you've let yourself get caught up in it. > So the real question is, if two companies release a defective product... * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
Except windows isn't any more or less defective than OS X. Both of you keep bypassing that fact. If you don't believe the initial premise that both OS's are defective, than there is no more reason to continue the rest of the discussion. I base my opinion on security experts, I'm also not in any way saying that out in the world you are in danger of trojans or viruses if you run OSX. OS X is never shown to be defective (except in all the security updates released for it) because their footprint is so small there is no reason for those after money to go after OSX. If the main reason for trojans/viruses these days is to gain control of as many systems as possible, no enterprising black hat would even look at OS X. But, you put OS X on a level playing field with windows and linux, and tell your white hat security experts, take down *any* of the three first and you get some cool cash...and OS X is taken down first for several years with ease that clearly shows defective issues in the OS. On top of that, the security guys go on to say they went after OS X because it was the easiest of three. So the real question is, if two companies release a defective product...but only one is used so much that it SHOWS it's defective nature...are they both defective or just the one? On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 7:29 PM, John Duncan Yoyo wrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 8:56 PM, mike wrote: > > > As always change the subject to fit your argument, one way to always > think > > you win. > > > > Sorry but Tom caught you. That is the final conclusion of your argument if > you push it all the way. > > > > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 6:37 PM, t.piwowar wrote: > > > > > > > > An interesting game of turn about your play here. So we should not > blame > > M$ > > > for producing a defective product, but instead we should blame the > buyer > > for > > > buying a known defective product. They are really the ones creating > this > > > mess. > > > > > > That's rich! > > > > > > > > > > > > > * > > > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy > ** > > > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/** > > > > * > > > > > > > > > * > > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > > * > > > > > > -- > John Duncan Yoyo > ---o) > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 8:56 PM, mike wrote: > As always change the subject to fit your argument, one way to always think > you win. > Sorry but Tom caught you. That is the final conclusion of your argument if you push it all the way. > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 6:37 PM, t.piwowar wrote: > > > > > An interesting game of turn about your play here. So we should not blame > M$ > > for producing a defective product, but instead we should blame the buyer > for > > buying a known defective product. They are really the ones creating this > > mess. > > > > That's rich! > > > > > > > > * > > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > > * > > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
As always change the subject to fit your argument, one way to always think you win. On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 6:37 PM, t.piwowar wrote: > > An interesting game of turn about your play here. So we should not blame M$ > for producing a defective product, but instead we should blame the buyer for > buying a known defective product. They are really the ones creating this > mess. > > That's rich! > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
On Jan 7, 2010, at 7:41 PM, mike wrote: Exploitable code is in EVERY single OS...EVERY single one. So is it MS's fault someone exploits it? I'm asking, not giving my answer. If you own a honda which is high on the theft list, should honda be buying better/ more security for all their cars sold? Does the responsibility of a the buyer of the product change not because one car is more easily stolen, but because one is simply stolen more? I've never heard the owner of a high theft vehicle blame the maker of the vehicle An interesting game of turn about your play here. So we should not blame M$ for producing a defective product, but instead we should blame the buyer for buying a known defective product. They are really the ones creating this mess. That's rich! * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
My point is that the manufacturer should be responsible for their products whoever they might be. You keep wandering off trying to give them a pass because they are attacked more often. They are attacked more often because they are low hanging fruit. M$ painted a big old target on its self for handling this sort of thing badly in the past. They should have done everything they could do to help their users have a secure experience. They should have bellied up to the bar and put out their own anti-virus for free because viruses exploit holes in code that they used in windows. I would say the same about Apple if they had these problems and failed to fix them. Hell Adobe is worse than either of them right now and the miscreants are just starting to figure it out. On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:41 AM, mike wrote: > That's true, MS should get things done ASAP...but that wasn't where this > was > going. We were talking about if it's MS's fault they are attacked more > than > their competitors? Does increased market share mean increased > responsibility? Perhaps it does, I don't know. What I know is, OS X is no > more secure than windows is...that's just a fact outed by several security > firms who do this for a living. Does that mean in the real world you are > no > more safer running OS X? Of course not, it is safer out in the real world > because no one goes after it...but again that's not what this was about. > > Some security related articles about patches etc. > > > http://www.silobreaker.com/mac-os-x-mega-patch-covers-58-security-vulnerabilities-5_2262728291028828160 > http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=61086&full_skip=1 > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 9:24 AM, John Duncan Yoyo > wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:22 AM, mike wrote: > > > > > But the point is they are all insecure, windows isn't more or less > secure > > > than say OS X, it just appears that way because OS X isn't attacked. > > Which > > > of course is security by obscurity, but that wasn't what we are talking > > > about. > > > > > > > > No I am talking about taking responsibility their OS's weakness and > fixing > > them. It is on both Apple and M$ to get things patched, blocked or > > otherwise secured. Apple may not be the target du jour but they seem to > > get > > that better. M$ frequently has known threats where the patches are not > > distributed until a threat is made public, > > > > -- > > John Duncan Yoyo > > ---o) > > > > > > * > > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > > * > > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
That's true, MS should get things done ASAP...but that wasn't where this was going. We were talking about if it's MS's fault they are attacked more than their competitors? Does increased market share mean increased responsibility? Perhaps it does, I don't know. What I know is, OS X is no more secure than windows is...that's just a fact outed by several security firms who do this for a living. Does that mean in the real world you are no more safer running OS X? Of course not, it is safer out in the real world because no one goes after it...but again that's not what this was about. Some security related articles about patches etc. http://www.silobreaker.com/mac-os-x-mega-patch-covers-58-security-vulnerabilities-5_2262728291028828160 http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=61086&full_skip=1 On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 9:24 AM, John Duncan Yoyo wrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:22 AM, mike wrote: > > > But the point is they are all insecure, windows isn't more or less secure > > than say OS X, it just appears that way because OS X isn't attacked. > Which > > of course is security by obscurity, but that wasn't what we are talking > > about. > > > > > No I am talking about taking responsibility their OS's weakness and fixing > them. It is on both Apple and M$ to get things patched, blocked or > otherwise secured. Apple may not be the target du jour but they seem to > get > that better. M$ frequently has known threats where the patches are not > distributed until a threat is made public, > > -- > John Duncan Yoyo > ---o) > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:22 AM, mike wrote: > But the point is they are all insecure, windows isn't more or less secure > than say OS X, it just appears that way because OS X isn't attacked. Which > of course is security by obscurity, but that wasn't what we are talking > about. > > No I am talking about taking responsibility their OS's weakness and fixing them. It is on both Apple and M$ to get things patched, blocked or otherwise secured. Apple may not be the target du jour but they seem to get that better. M$ frequently has known threats where the patches are not distributed until a threat is made public, -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
Godmode doesn't give a user elevated status..all it does is put a list of all the controls in one place...if your user doesn't have access to these before a godmode folder is created, they don't have access after either. Yes, during the security conferences the playing field and motivations are leveled...to the mac lovers this is 'unfair'. You might try reading the breakdowns of the security conferences to see what actually goes on. They don't surround the macs with candles and take away it's magic mojo for a day so they can get through their defenses, there are weaknesses and security issues as on any os. If we don't agree that human beings write these lines of code, then so be it. We'll agree to disagree. On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Art Clemons wrote: > On 01/08/2010 01:22 AM, mike wrote: > > But the point is they are all insecure, windows isn't more or less secure > > than say OS X, it just appears that way because OS X isn't attacked. > Which > > of course is security by obscurity, but that wasn't what we are talking > > about. > > I'm not sure that OS X is just more secure by obscurity. Yes, during > the hacker conferences, Macs get pwned but if life were really that > simple for most hackers, nobody would be on the internet or exchanging > files. Consider for example the recently "discovered" "God" mode on > Windows 7, and the sad part is that a Microsoft spokes-individual > actually admitted that there were more. Those are all security holes if > not implemented properly. I can't think of a comparable problem on Macs > and Linux & BSDs both are constantly upgrading because of security > risks, but the only god mode for them is a silly admin. > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10423985-56.html?tag=mncol;txt > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
On 01/08/2010 01:22 AM, mike wrote: > But the point is they are all insecure, windows isn't more or less secure > than say OS X, it just appears that way because OS X isn't attacked. Which > of course is security by obscurity, but that wasn't what we are talking > about. I'm not sure that OS X is just more secure by obscurity. Yes, during the hacker conferences, Macs get pwned but if life were really that simple for most hackers, nobody would be on the internet or exchanging files. Consider for example the recently "discovered" "God" mode on Windows 7, and the sad part is that a Microsoft spokes-individual actually admitted that there were more. Those are all security holes if not implemented properly. I can't think of a comparable problem on Macs and Linux & BSDs both are constantly upgrading because of security risks, but the only god mode for them is a silly admin. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10423985-56.html?tag=mncol;txt * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
But the point is they are all insecure, windows isn't more or less secure than say OS X, it just appears that way because OS X isn't attacked. Which of course is security by obscurity, but that wasn't what we are talking about. On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:30 PM, John Duncan Yoyo wrote: > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 7:59 PM, mike wrote: > > > Your logic wrong because locks on os's are similar...one doesn't have > > crappy > > locks, one just gets stolen more. > > > > No it's just easier to steal because it is plentiful and insecure. If one > gives you a hard time you move on to the next one. > > -- > John Duncan Yoyo > ---o) > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 7:59 PM, mike wrote: > Your logic wrong because locks on os's are similar...one doesn't have > crappy > locks, one just gets stolen more. > > No it's just easier to steal because it is plentiful and insecure. If one gives you a hard time you move on to the next one. -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
Your logic wrong because locks on os's are similar...one doesn't have crappy locks, one just gets stolen more. On Jan 7, 2010 5:56 PM, "John Duncan Yoyo" wrote: On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 7:41 PM, mike wrote: > Exploitable code is in EVERY singl... > Dammm right it is their problem whether it is Apple or M$. Would you buy a car that could be stolen with a screw driver because the locks are crummy? Would you buy a new car that required you to drive to a locksmith and replace all the locks with ones that work? I don't think so. If the car is built to be stolen no one would buy it until the locks worked and the security was upgraded. Cars now come with alarms and more secure keys and are less frequently stolen. A software client should demand no less. -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) **... * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 7:41 PM, mike wrote: > Exploitable code is in EVERY single OS...EVERY single one. So is it MS's > fault someone exploits it? I'm asking, not giving my answer. If you own a > honda which is high on the theft list, should honda be buying better/more > security for all their cars sold? Does the responsibility of a the buyer > of > the product change not because one car is more easily stolen, but because > one is simply stolen more? I've never heard the owner of a high theft > vehicle blame the maker of the vehicle.. > > Dammm right it is their problem whether it is Apple or M$. Would you buy a car that could be stolen with a screw driver because the locks are crummy? Would you buy a new car that required you to drive to a locksmith and replace all the locks with ones that work? I don't think so. If the car is built to be stolen no one would buy it until the locks worked and the security was upgraded. Cars now come with alarms and more secure keys and are less frequently stolen. A software client should demand no less. -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
Exploitable code is in EVERY single OS...EVERY single one. So is it MS's fault someone exploits it? I'm asking, not giving my answer. If you own a honda which is high on the theft list, should honda be buying better/more security for all their cars sold? Does the responsibility of a the buyer of the product change not because one car is more easily stolen, but because one is simply stolen more? I've never heard the owner of a high theft vehicle blame the maker of the vehicle.. On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 5:21 PM, John Duncan Yoyo wrote: > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:23 AM, tjpa wrote: > > The real problem is that they should have produced an antivirus long ago as > a free patch to make up for deficiencies in their product. We should never > have had to pay for this in the first place since it should be on the > manufacturer to repair faults in their own products. > -- > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:23 AM, tjpa wrote: > On Jan 7, 2010, at 11:05 AM, Tony B wrote: > >> This isn't the free rootkit scanner we've been using for years? I >> admit, it's been over a year since I ran it last. And now I see at >> this link it won't work on any newer systems. >> > > Isn't this the thing about M$ strong-arming the anti-virus vendors out of > the business so they can take it over? > > First they build a defective OS that needs lots of anti-virus help, then > they sell the anti-virus help separately. They used to call this the fox > guarding the hen house. > > The real problem is that they should have produced an antivirus long ago as a free patch to make up for deficiencies in their product. We should never have had to pay for this in the first place since it should be on the manufacturer to repair faults in their own products. -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
Well if you looked at it from a reality standpoint it wouldn't seem that way. On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 9:23 AM, tjpa wrote: > On Jan 7, 2010, at 11:05 AM, Tony B wrote: > >> This isn't the free rootkit scanner we've been using for years? I >> admit, it's been over a year since I ran it last. And now I see at >> this link it won't work on any newer systems. >> > > Isn't this the thing about M$ strong-arming the anti-virus vendors out of > the business so they can take it over? > > First they build a defective OS that needs lots of anti-virus help, then > they sell the anti-virus help separately. They used to call this the fox > guarding the hen house. > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
On Jan 7, 2010, at 11:05 AM, Tony B wrote: This isn't the free rootkit scanner we've been using for years? I admit, it's been over a year since I ran it last. And now I see at this link it won't work on any newer systems. Isn't this the thing about M$ strong-arming the anti-virus vendors out of the business so they can take it over? First they build a defective OS that needs lots of anti-virus help, then they sell the anti-virus help separately. They used to call this the fox guarding the hen house. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
There is also rootkit revealer from Mark Russinovich who does some great tools through sysinternals. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897445.aspx On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 8:40 AM, tjpa wrote: > On Jan 7, 2010, at 9:41 AM, John DeCarlo wrote: > >> I just got an email with an ad for a free rootkit "buster" (I think from >> Trend Micro, based on the ad). >> > > Trend Micro bought HijackThis about a year ago. This may be the fruit of > that transaction. > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
This isn't the free rootkit scanner we've been using for years? I admit, it's been over a year since I ran it last. And now I see at this link it won't work on any newer systems. >Note: x64 operating systems are not supported. On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:40 AM, tjpa wrote: > On Jan 7, 2010, at 9:41 AM, John DeCarlo wrote: >> >> I just got an email with an ad for a free rootkit "buster" (I think from >> Trend Micro, based on the ad). > > Trend Micro bought HijackThis about a year ago. This may be the fruit of > that transaction. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
On Jan 7, 2010, at 9:41 AM, John DeCarlo wrote: I just got an email with an ad for a free rootkit "buster" (I think from Trend Micro, based on the ad). Trend Micro bought HijackThis about a year ago. This may be the fruit of that transaction. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
[CGUYS] Rootkits and earlier request for help from Gail
Hello, I just got an email with an ad for a free rootkit "buster" (I think from Trend Micro, based on the ad). http://free.antivirus.com/rootkit-buster/ I don't usually reboot into Windows, so I haven't had a chance to test this, but thought others might be interested. I'm sure we could all benefit from any experience trying to use this. Thanks. -- John DeCarlo, My Views Are My Own * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
