Vista and the malware situation

DanS · Dec 10, 2007

"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in news:#FaXpnoOIHA.4880
@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:

>> Sounds like you don't know what the fuçk you're talking about and have
>> never cleaned a computer of malware and pay someone like me to do it.
>
> They were paying you, so you found:
> 19 viruses
> 26 spywares
>
> Do you charge by the goblin?
>
> How many do-bads would you have reported if you were doing it for free?

Well I do it for free for friends and family, and one of the worst had 700+
items reported by Spybot & AdAware. I know those are probably less than 100
individual items. That PC took, no kidding, 45 minutes to boot up. First
thing I do when I get one to clean is just boot it normally to see what's
going on. I fired that one up, watched it boot for 10 minutes, the wife
called for dinner so I went and ate, used the restroom, and went back and
watched it for another 10 minutes before it was done.

And I'm going to another friend's tomorrow.

Are you saying you don't believe it ?

DanS · Dec 10, 2007

"Steve Thackery" <thack@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:ui6jC#0OIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:

> There have been loads of security patches to the various Linux distros
> over the past year or so. It's stupid to claim that ANY of the three
> big PC operating systems are secure.
>
> SteveT

But you are saying your install is completely secure.

DanS · Dec 10, 2007

Frank <fb@spamm.nrz> wrote in news:ePpIwo4OIHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:

> ArameFarpado wrote:
>> Em Domingo, 9 de Dezembro de 2007 19:22, dennis@home escreveu:
>>
>>>>And Windows Live Messenger or eMule. Open a malware attachment in *any
> *
>>>>email program with Windows, and you're fuÃ§ked.
>>>
>>>And that differs on linux how?
>>
>>
>> http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/items/viruses/index.php
>
> You actually believe that crock of lying sh*t don't you!
> Frank

What proof do you have against it ?

NoStop · Dec 10, 2007

Frank wrote:

> NoStop wrote:
>
>>
>> PS. Frankie Boy, do read my sig. You'll find it helpful.
>>
>
>
> I see that I, along with RS now own you!
> Wonderful!
> Frank
>
> oh, I'd never, ever visit any url associated with you.
> Go spam somewhere else loser.

Really Frankie Boy, the url isn't associated with me. It's posted for YOU
and only because I feel sorry enough for your sorry ass to point out where
YOU can get help. And don't lie, Frankie, we all know you've read that link
at least once. You really need to visit it EVERY TIME you see one of my
posts instead of just talking about RS, who you seem totally fixated on.

Cheers.

PS. Frank, do read my sig. It's posted here to help YOU.

--
Remove Vista Activation Completely ...
http://tinyurl.com/2w8qqo

Frank - seek help immediately! Visit ...
http://www.binsa.org/

NoStop · Dec 10, 2007

dennis@home wrote:

>
>
> "NoStop" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Bhi7j.168$Mw6.44@pd7urf2no...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fjjm9a$gri$2@aioe.org...
>>>> dennis@home wrote:
>
> 8<
>
>>>>> Do you tar -x stuff?
>>>>
>>>> No, I don't.
>>>
>>> OK so run "sudo find / -name tar -exec rm -f {} \" and remove some
>>> bloatware then.
>>
>> I tried that but Vista just crashed.
>
> Do you lie often?
> Or is just all the bad stuff about vista and all the good stuff about
> Ubuntu?

Dennis, Dennis. Sigh. You can be such a turd. BTW, Dennis, Mr. Computer
Expert, Ubuntu really isn't hard to install at all. Try it sometimes and
you'll understand why Vista IS bloatware compared to a real operating
system like Ubuntu.

Cheers.

PS. Frankie Boy, the RS stalker ... please read my sig. It's being posted
especially for you!

--
Remove Vista Activation Completely ...
http://tinyurl.com/2w8qqo

Frank - seek help immediately! Visit ...
http://www.binsa.org/

Frank · Dec 11, 2007

NoStop wrote:
> dennis@home wrote:
>
>
>>
>>"NoStop" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>news:Bhi7j.168$Mw6.44@pd7urf2no...
>>
>>>dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:fjjm9a$gri$2@aioe.org...
>>>>
>>>>>dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>8<
>>
>>>>>>Do you tar -x stuff?
>>>>>
>>>>>No, I don't.
>>>>
>>>>OK so run "sudo find / -name tar -exec rm -f {} \" and remove some
>>>>bloatware then.
>>>
>>>I tried that but Vista just crashed.
>>
>>Do you lie often?
>>Or is just all the bad stuff about vista and all the good stuff about
>>Ubuntu?
>
>
> Dennis, Dennis. Sigh. You can be such a turd. BTW, Dennis, Mr. Computer
> Expert, Ubuntu really isn't hard to install at all. Try it sometimes and
> you'll understand why Vista IS bloatware compared to a real operating
> system like Ubuntu.

Better yet doris, install Vista and you'll see just how easy, quick and
great a real OS can be.
Frank

Yeah, Cheers doris and oh, I'd never, ever got to any url as your
insistance.
Loser...LOL!

Frank · Dec 11, 2007

NoStop wrote:

> Frank wrote:
>
>
>>NoStop wrote:
>>
>>
>>>PS. Frankie Boy, do read my sig. You'll find it helpful.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I see that I, along with RS now own you!
>>Wonderful!
>>Frank
>>
>>oh, I'd never, ever visit any url associated with you.
>>Go spam somewhere else loser.
>
>
> Really Frankie Boy, the url isn't associated with me.

Of course it is. You must visit it very often to be so enamored with
it...LOL!

It's posted for YOU
> and only because I feel sorry enough for your sorry ass to point out where
> YOU can get help.

Sickos like you are just stupid enough to think anyone would believe you
care one iota about anyone else....

And don't lie, Frankie, we all know you've read that link
> at least once.

hehehe...sorry pal...never,ever went there and I never will...you lose
as*hole!

You really need to visit it EVERY TIME you see one of my
> posts instead of just talking about RS, who you seem totally fixated on.

Ask RS about linux the next time your bent over for him ok?
Hahaha...don't lie now, you're bent over very often for him right...LOL!
Frank

Yeah, Cheers you stupid POS linux loser!

PS. Frank, do read my sig. It's posted here to help YOU.

I love it when and idiot like you begs...hahaha...lol!

Alias · Dec 11, 2007

Frank wrote:
> NoStop wrote:
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "NoStop" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Bhi7j.168$Mw6.44@pd7urf2no...
>>>
>>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fjjm9a$gri$2@aioe.org...
>>>>>
>>>>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>> 8<
>>>
>>>>>>> Do you tar -x stuff?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK so run "sudo find / -name tar -exec rm -f {} \" and remove some
>>>>> bloatware then.
>>>>
>>>> I tried that but Vista just crashed.
>>>
>>> Do you lie often?
>>> Or is just all the bad stuff about vista and all the good stuff about
>>> Ubuntu?
>>
>>
>> Dennis, Dennis. Sigh. You can be such a turd. BTW, Dennis, Mr. Computer
>> Expert, Ubuntu really isn't hard to install at all. Try it sometimes and
>> you'll understand why Vista IS bloatware compared to a real operating
>> system like Ubuntu.
>
> Better yet doris, install Vista and you'll see just how easy, quick and
> great a real OS can be.
> Frank

Been there, done that and wore out the T-Shirt. Vista sucks.

Alias

dennis@home · Dec 11, 2007

"ArameFarpado" <a-farpado.spam@netcabo.pt> wrote in message
news:fjkksq$d9c$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Em Segunda, 10 de Dezembro de 2007 23:57, Michael Palumbo escreveu:
>
>>
>> The very same behavior that so many people complain about in Vista . . .
>> perhaps this is why UAC doesn't bother me one bit in Vista? I'm so used
>> to similar behavior in Linux . . . hmm . . .
>>
>> Mic
>
> Windows permission system is useless, lots of malware programs, after
> activated by a non-previleged user... let's say user=peter, turns
> user=SYSTEM right after activation, and the user SYSTEM has more powers
> than the administrator.
> don't ask me how they do it, but i've seen lot's of malware doing this
> stuff
> when attacking windows systems. this previlege escalation fenomena is not
> so rare and it is instantaneous.
>
> i might not use windows at home any more, but i have a network of more
> than
> 200 Pc's at work, and i've allready have to clean infections that would
> not
> taken place if windows permission system really worked as it should.
>
>

That just means whoever set up your windows machines did a poor job.
Windows NT onwards have very good permissions available using ACLs.
You can give privileges down to individual users just like Linux and on many
cases better.
Its just idleness and lack of knowledge that results in ordinary users being
able to infect machines.
The same thing could happen if they ran as root on Linux.

The only real thing M$ did wrong is in not ensuring the default users are
restricted enough.
It is a compromise between usability and security and M$ got it wrong.
It is fixable without too much effort.
Vista is a step in the right direction but you still get people turning off
the extra security because they don't understand it.

Alias · Dec 11, 2007

DanS wrote:
> Frank <fb@spamm.nrz> wrote in news:ePpIwo4OIHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>
>> ArameFarpado wrote:
>>> Em Domingo, 9 de Dezembro de 2007 19:22, dennis@home escreveu:
>>>
>>>>> And Windows Live Messenger or eMule. Open a malware attachment in *any
>> *
>>>>> email program with Windows, and you're fuÃ§ked.
>>>> And that differs on linux how?
>>>
>>> http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/items/viruses/index.php
>> You actually believe that crock of lying sh*t don't you!
>> Frank
>
> What proof do you have against it ?

Frank doesn't give proof. His standard is if you don't just love Vista,
you're a liar and a troll.

Alias

dennis@home · Dec 11, 2007

"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message
news:Xns9A02E5F5152DFthisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142...
> Frank <fb@spamm.nrz> wrote in news:ePpIwo4OIHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>
>> ArameFarpado wrote:
>>> Em Domingo, 9 de Dezembro de 2007 19:22, dennis@home escreveu:
>>>
>>>>>And Windows Live Messenger or eMule. Open a malware attachment in *any
>> *
>>>>>email program with Windows, and you're fuÃ§ked.
>>>>
>>>>And that differs on linux how?
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/items/viruses/index.php
>>
>> You actually believe that crock of lying sh*t don't you!
>> Frank
>
> What proof do you have against it ?

Well as it says linux malware does exist.
If you do run it as root it can do anything it likes just as it can on
windows so you are not safe just by assuming you will never encounter some
linux malware.
It is true that there is less malware for linux due to the smaller number of
users so you could put your head in the sand and say "well there is so
little malware for linux out there it won't happen to me". Its a common
security technique used by linux users so it must work.

As for IIS being less secure than Apache then that I am not so sure about..
there have been a few worms going around Apache servers recently, then there
are a few vulnerabilities in PHP which is usually installed with Apache. I
have no doubt they will be fixed but do users check they haven't already
been compromised before they applied the fix? There are few malware scanners
for linux and IMO most users aren't knowledgeable enough to find malware on
linux even if they looked (which they don't because they can't get
malware!).

DanS · Dec 11, 2007

"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
news:ukrEa3#OIHA.4440@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

>
>
> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A02E5F5152DFthisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142...
>> Frank <fb@spamm.nrz> wrote in
>> news:ePpIwo4OIHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>>
>>> ArameFarpado wrote:
>>>> Em Domingo, 9 de Dezembro de 2007 19:22, dennis@home escreveu:
>>>>
>>>>>>And Windows Live Messenger or eMule. Open a malware attachment in
>>>>>>*any
>>> *
>>>>>>email program with Windows, and you're fuÃ§ked.
>>>>>
>>>>>And that differs on linux how?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/items/viruses/index.php
>>>
>>> You actually believe that crock of lying sh*t don't you!
>>> Frank
>>
>> What proof do you have against it ?
>
> Well as it says linux malware does exist.

(Honestly, I just read the article now.)

> If you do run it as root it can do anything it likes just as it can on
> windows so you are not safe just by assuming you will never encounter
> some linux malware.
> It is true that there is less malware for linux due to the smaller
> number of users so you could put your head in the sand and say "well
> there is so little malware for linux out there it won't happen to me".
> Its a common security technique used by linux users so it must work.

There was a link posted here last week that listed the known viruses that
operate on Linux. IIRC, there were like 15 listed.

FProt claims to scan for 546,460 known Windows viruses.

Just using straight numbers, that would be 36,000 times the risk of
getting a virus in Windows vs. Linux.

When you factor in the low number of Linux installs vs Windows, meaning a
much much lower number of users to get infected and help spread the
virus, that ratio is even higher.

> As for IIS being less secure than Apache then that I am not so sure
> about.. there have been a few worms going around Apache servers
> recently, then there are a few vulnerabilities in PHP which is usually
> installed with Apache. I have no doubt they will be fixed but do users
> check they haven't already been compromised before they applied the
> fix? There are few malware scanners for linux and IMO most users
> aren't knowledgeable enough to find malware on linux even if they
> looked (which they don't because they can't get malware!).

Yes, I saw a page about Linux malware as well. A few packages. I'm sure
it would be a rare thing to run across one in the wild as Windows users
do.

ArameFarpado · Dec 11, 2007

Em TerÃ§a, 11 de Dezembro de 2007 11:49, dennis@home escreveu:

>
> That just means whoever set up your windows machines did a poor job.
> Windows NT onwards have very good permissions available using ACLs.
yeah right!! keep on believing that.

> You can give privileges down to individual users just like Linux and on
> many cases better.
Every machine is configured with a administrator and a single user, this
single user has the maximum limitations, he doesn't have permissions to
change nothing in the system, no installs/unistalls what so ever...
and still, a program just arrived by mail and clicked by the user gain
SYSTEM previlegies. the user is not allowed to right in the registry, but
the process start by him does...

If your're so certain that those permissions really works, then explain this
virus:

http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2007-062312-1508-99

(there are much more like this one)

Frank · Dec 11, 2007

ArameFarpado wrote:
> Em TerÃ§a, 11 de Dezembro de 2007 11:49, dennis@home escreveu:
>
>
>>That just means whoever set up your windows machines did a poor job.
>>Windows NT onwards have very good permissions available using ACLs.
>
> yeah right!! keep on believing that.
>
>
>
>>You can give privileges down to individual users just like Linux and on
>>many cases better.
>
> Every machine is configured with a administrator and a single user, this
> single user has the maximum limitations, he doesn't have permissions to
> change nothing in the system, no installs/unistalls what so ever...
> and still, a program just arrived by mail and clicked by the user gain
> SYSTEM previlegies. the user is not allowed to right in the registry, but
> the process start by him does...
>
> If your're so certain that those permissions really works, then explain this
> virus:
>
> http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2007-062312-1508-99
>
> (there are much more like this one)
>
>

I see that Vista is not listed as being affected by that virus.
You did notice that, right?
Frank

Alias · Dec 11, 2007

Frank wrote:
> ArameFarpado wrote:
>> Em TerÃ§a, 11 de Dezembro de 2007 11:49, dennis@home escreveu:
>>
>>
>>> That just means whoever set up your windows machines did a poor job.
>>> Windows NT onwards have very good permissions available using ACLs.
>>
>> yeah right!! keep on believing that.
>>
>>
>>
>>> You can give privileges down to individual users just like Linux and on
>>> many cases better.
>>
>> Every machine is configured with a administrator and a single user, this
>> single user has the maximum limitations, he doesn't have permissions to
>> change nothing in the system, no installs/unistalls what so ever...
>> and still, a program just arrived by mail and clicked by the user gain
>> SYSTEM previlegies. the user is not allowed to right in the registry, but
>> the process start by him does...
>>
>> If your're so certain that those permissions really works, then
>> explain this
>> virus:
>>
>> http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2007-062312-1508-99
>>
>>
>> (there are much more like this one)
>>
>>
>
>
> I see that Vista is not listed as being affected by that virus.
> You did notice that, right?
> Frank

Wait til after xmas, little man, and you will see lotsa Genuine and
Activated Vista Viruses.

Alias

ArameFarpado · Dec 11, 2007

ArameFarpado · Dec 11, 2007

Em TerÃ§a, 11 de Dezembro de 2007 20:16, Alias escreveu:

>
> Wait til after xmas,

Wait ???

Frank · Dec 11, 2007

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:
>
>> ArameFarpado wrote:
>>
>>> Em TerÃ§a, 11 de Dezembro de 2007 11:49, dennis@home escreveu:
>>>
>>>
>>>> That just means whoever set up your windows machines did a poor job.
>>>> Windows NT onwards have very good permissions available using ACLs.
>>>
>>>
>>> yeah right!! keep on believing that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> You can give privileges down to individual users just like Linux and on
>>>> many cases better.
>>>
>>>
>>> Every machine is configured with a administrator and a single user, this
>>> single user has the maximum limitations, he doesn't have permissions to
>>> change nothing in the system, no installs/unistalls what so ever...
>>> and still, a program just arrived by mail and clicked by the user gain
>>> SYSTEM previlegies. the user is not allowed to right in the registry,
>>> but
>>> the process start by him does...
>>>
>>> If your're so certain that those permissions really works, then
>>> explain this
>>> virus:
>>>
>>> http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2007-062312-1508-99
>>>
>>>
>>> (there are much more like this one)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I see that Vista is not listed as being affected by that virus.
>> You did notice that, right?
>> Frank
>
>
> Wait til after xmas, little man, and you will see lotsa Genuine and
> Activated Vista Viruses.
>
> Alias

Hold your breath...then maybe we'll never hear from you again you stupid
POS lying linux troll.
Frank

Frank · Dec 11, 2007

dennis@home · Dec 11, 2007

"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message
news:Xns9A035D6BF7E8Athisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142...
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
> news:ukrEa3#OIHA.4440@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
>
>>
>>
>> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9A02E5F5152DFthisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142...
>>> Frank <fb@spamm.nrz> wrote in
>>> news:ePpIwo4OIHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>>>
>>>> ArameFarpado wrote:
>>>>> Em Domingo, 9 de Dezembro de 2007 19:22, dennis@home escreveu:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>And Windows Live Messenger or eMule. Open a malware attachment in
>>>>>>>*any
>>>> *
>>>>>>>email program with Windows, and you're fuÃ§ked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And that differs on linux how?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/items/viruses/index.php
>>>>
>>>> You actually believe that crock of lying sh*t don't you!
>>>> Frank
>>>
>>> What proof do you have against it ?
>>
>> Well as it says linux malware does exist.
>
> (Honestly, I just read the article now.)
>
>> If you do run it as root it can do anything it likes just as it can on
>> windows so you are not safe just by assuming you will never encounter
>> some linux malware.
>> It is true that there is less malware for linux due to the smaller
>> number of users so you could put your head in the sand and say "well
>> there is so little malware for linux out there it won't happen to me".
>> Its a common security technique used by linux users so it must work.
>
> There was a link posted here last week that listed the known viruses that
> operate on Linux. IIRC, there were like 15 listed.
>
> FProt claims to scan for 546,460 known Windows viruses.
>
> Just using straight numbers, that would be 36,000 times the risk of
> getting a virus in Windows vs. Linux.
>
> When you factor in the low number of Linux installs vs Windows, meaning a
> much much lower number of users to get infected and help spread the
> virus, that ratio is even higher.
>
>> As for IIS being less secure than Apache then that I am not so sure
>> about.. there have been a few worms going around Apache servers
>> recently, then there are a few vulnerabilities in PHP which is usually
>> installed with Apache. I have no doubt they will be fixed but do users
>> check they haven't already been compromised before they applied the
>> fix? There are few malware scanners for linux and IMO most users
>> aren't knowledgeable enough to find malware on linux even if they
>> looked (which they don't because they can't get malware!).
>
> Yes, I saw a page about Linux malware as well. A few packages. I'm sure
> it would be a rare thing to run across one in the wild as Windows users
> do.
>

That is the normal mistake Linux users make.
Just what do you think the botnets are used for?
If you have a million bots it doesn't take much effort to find a few
vulnerable Linux machines.
It does take a lot of effort for the Linux user to find out he has been
compromised, if he ever looks that is and why should he? He is invulnerable
as you say.

Vista and the malware situation

DanS

DanS

DanS

NoStop

NoStop

Frank

Frank

Alias

dennis@home

Alias

dennis@home

DanS

ArameFarpado

Frank

Alias

ArameFarpado

ArameFarpado

Frank

Frank

dennis@home

Similar threads