Re: A Google Groups conundrum

[FromTheRafters]

"~BD~" <BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk.> wrote in message
newsu-dndRiF_JRsejRnZ2dnUVZ8gOdnZ2d@bt.com...
> On 25/08/2010 13:51, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> "~BD~"<BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk.> wrote in message
>> news:l_2dnW1oYfEsRenRnZ2dnUVZ8uSdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> On 25/08/2010 02:25, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>> "~BD~"<BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> newsvKdnSWv7ojnKO7RnZ2dnUVZ8tCdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.apple.com/why-mac/better-os/#viruses
>>>>>
>>>>> Where Apple states ............
>>>>>
>>>>> "With virtually no effort on your part, Mac OS X defends
>>>>> against viruses and other malicious applications, or malware.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Marketing crap.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like you to explain which items on this web page are , as you
>>> call
>>> it, "Marketing Crap"
>>
>> The first line sounds really reassuring, like this is all you need.
>> It
>> isn't.
>
> You haven't explained "It isn't". More detail requested!

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html

Another thing is that an OS is built to aid the user in executing users'
choice programs, not about making those choices *for* the user. This
whole "With virtually no effort on your part..." caters to lazy
practices - which is where such security often fails. Sometimes what is
and is not malware lies in the choices a user makes, not in some
software exploit. Yes, even Mac users should realize that it is *their*
responibility to implement security, not some software's responsibility.

[~BD~]

On 25/08/2010 16:25, FromTheRafters wrote:

>>> The first line sounds really reassuring, like this is all you need.
>>> It isn't.
>>
>> You haven't explained "It isn't". More detail requested!
>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html

*Thank you*! A really good article which I recall reading at the time
(or thereabouts) of its publication.

I especially remember this (G.Cluley) "Social engineering is the
unifying threat that puts all computer users at risk, regardless of
operating system. And that's what most threats exploit."

I agree with that statement wholeheartedly!

<aside>

"Graham Cluley, senior technical consultant with Sophos anti-virus
believes Raid could now be in big trouble. He said, "Raid is playing a
very, very dangerous game. The US authorities have shown that they are
prepared to pursue this sort of thing by any means."

The alleged author of the Melissa virus, David L Smith, is currently
being prosecuted and faces a maximum penalty of 40 years' imprisonment
and a fine of $480,000, if found guilty.

Cluley thinks that this case could also have put the wind up Raid. He
added, "Raid has been fairly quiet of late. Maybe he's just getting on
with his real life, or he's found girls or something, but he could well
have taken a look at this case and got the heebie-jeebies.""

<Raid is our very own Dustin Cook!>

> Another thing is that an OS is built to aid the user in executing users'
> choice programs, not about making those choices *for* the user. This
> whole "With virtually no effort on your part..." caters to lazy
> practices - which is where such security often fails. Sometimes what is
> and is not malware lies in the choices a user makes, not in some
> software exploit. Yes, even Mac users should realize that it is *their*
> responsibility to implement security, not some software's responsibility.

I am now in agreement with you!

Thank you for discussing this, FTR.

Did you like the Barclaycard advertisement, btw?

BD

[FromTheRafters]

"~BD~" <.BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk.> wrote in message
news:NNKdna1Jh_5RoujRnZ2dnUVZ7vSdnZ2d@bt.com...
> On 25/08/2010 16:25, FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>>>> The first line sounds really reassuring, like this is all you need.
>>>> It isn't.
>>>
>>> You haven't explained "It isn't". More detail requested!
>>
>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html
>
> *Thank you*! A really good article which I recall reading at the time
> (or thereabouts) of its publication.
>
> I especially remember this (G.Cluley) "Social engineering is the
> unifying threat that puts all computer users at risk, regardless of
> operating system. And that's what most threats exploit."
>
> I agree with that statement wholeheartedly!

I liked Gary McGraw's statement "... Mostly I have a Mac because it is a
better machine, not because it is more secure."

> <aside>
>
> "Graham Cluley, senior technical consultant with Sophos anti-virus
> believes Raid could now be in big trouble. He said, "Raid is playing a
> very, very dangerous game. The US authorities have shown that they are
> prepared to pursue this sort of thing by any means."

Yeah, well, that's Graham for ya.

[...]

> <Raid is our very own Dustin Cook!>

I remember, his friends were genuinely concerned.

>> Another thing is that an OS is built to aid the user in executing
>> users'
>> choice programs, not about making those choices *for* the user. This
>> whole "With virtually no effort on your part..." caters to lazy
>> practices - which is where such security often fails. Sometimes what
>> is
>> and is not malware lies in the choices a user makes, not in some
>> software exploit. Yes, even Mac users should realize that it is
>> *their*
>> responsibility to implement security, not some software's
>> responsibility.
>
> I am now in agreement with you!
>
> Thank you for discussing this, FTR.
>
> Did you like the Barclaycard advertisement, btw?

I wasn't paying attention.

[~BD~]

On 25/08/2010 19:10, FromTheRafters wrote:
[....]
>
> I liked Gary McGraw's statement "... Mostly I have a Mac because it is a
> better machine, not because it is more secure."

I'll agree with that! and ...... I like how it looks on my desk too!

>
> [...]
>
> I wasn't paying attention.

Shame on you!

It was relevant because, like me, the Barclaycard advert. was banned!

Watch here! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3NrL...eature=related

BD

[Dustin]

~BD~ <.BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk.> wrote in
news:NNKdna1Jh_5RoujRnZ2dnUVZ7vSdnZ2d@bt.com:

> On 25/08/2010 16:25, FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>>>> The first line sounds really reassuring, like this is all you
>>>> need. It isn't.
>>>
>>> You haven't explained "It isn't". More detail requested!
>>
>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html
>
> *Thank you*! A really good article which I recall reading at the
> time (or thereabouts) of its publication.

Mostly marketing FUD. Cluley was good for that. not much else.

> "Graham Cluley, senior technical consultant with Sophos anti-virus
> believes Raid could now be in big trouble. He said, "Raid is playing
> a very, very dangerous game. The US authorities have shown that they
> are prepared to pursue this sort of thing by any means."

Yes, well; obviously that never happened. Raid didn't do anything they
could prove was illegal. Cluley was nothing more than a glorified
mouthpiece for Sophos antivirus.

> Cluley thinks that this case could also have put the wind up Raid.
> He added, "Raid has been fairly quiet of late. Maybe he's just
> getting on with his real life, or he's found girls or something, but
> he could well have taken a look at this case and got the
> heebie-jeebies.""
>
> <Raid is our very own Dustin Cook!>

Are you trying again to start trouble? Not that it matters much in this
case, Cluley was full of hot air looking for free media publications
(ie: free advertising for sophos). Back then, as they still tend to do,
many publications just take those individuals word as if it comes from
God himself.

That article of Cluley's is well over 10 years old and has nothing
whatsoever to do with google groups OR mac malware. So why did you feel
the need to post a section of it and then point towards me?




--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.

[~BD~]

On 26/08/2010 16:23, Dustin wrote:
> ~BD~<.BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk.> wrote in
> news:NNKdna1Jh_5RoujRnZ2dnUVZ7vSdnZ2d@bt.com:
>
>> On 25/08/2010 16:25, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>
>>>>> The first line sounds really reassuring, like this is all you
>>>>> need. It isn't.
>>>>
>>>> You haven't explained "It isn't". More detail requested!
>>>
>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html
>>
>> *Thank you*! A really good article which I recall reading at the
>> time (or thereabouts) of its publication.
>
> Mostly marketing FUD. Cluley was good for that. not much else.

I don't agree with that. The cnet article was, AFAICT, an attempt by the
author Elinor Mills to elicit a wide range of views from industry
professionals

>> "Graham Cluley, senior technical consultant with Sophos anti-virus
>> believes Raid could now be in big trouble. He said, "Raid is playing
>> a very, very dangerous game. The US authorities have shown that they
>> are prepared to pursue this sort of thing by any means."
>
> Yes, well; obviously that never happened. Raid didn't do anything they
> could prove was illegal. Cluley was nothing more than a glorified
> mouthpiece for Sophos antivirus.

Is he not still?

He has held down his job with Sophos far longer than you were able to
hold down yours with Malwarebytes! ;-)

>> Cluley thinks that this case could also have put the wind up Raid.
>> He added, "Raid has been fairly quiet of late. Maybe he's just
>> getting on with his real life, or he's found girls or something, but
>> he could well have taken a look at this case and got the
>> heebie-jeebies.""
>>
>> <Raid is our very own Dustin Cook!>
>
> Are you trying again to start trouble?

Not at all!

> Not that it matters much in this
> case, Cluley was full of hot air looking for free media publications
> (ie: free advertising for sophos). Back then, as they still tend to do,
> many publications just take those individuals word as if it comes from
> God himself.

Reporters for magazines and newspapers have to take advice from
*someone* and Graham Cluley has a good reputation I believe. Do you
think otherwise?

> That article of Cluley's is well over 10 years old and has nothing
> whatsoever to do with google groups OR mac malware. So why did you feel
> the need to post a section of it and then point towards me?

Did you actually read the cnet article? Do you know anything about the
author? http://www.cnet.com/profile/elinormills/

Elinor is a Senior Writer - you may watch her chatting here if you wish:
http://www.cnet.com/profile/elinormills/#videos

I wanted to make sure posters on Scorched-Earth know you for what you
really are. I've read slanging matches between you and Graham on Google
Groups, most of which I guess you'd like to be forgotten. For his part,
I have *him* down in my 'good guy' book. Although I can't find you on
Wikipedia, one may read a bit about Graham here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Cluley

I've never actually seen any article about you written by Graham Cluley
- maybe you are thinking of the article published here:

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security...racks-2073298/

HTH

D.

[Dustin]

~BD~ <.BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk.> wrote in
news7SdnSTWRfeBBOvRnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@bt.com:

>> Mostly marketing FUD. Cluley was good for that. not much else.
>
> I don't agree with that. The cnet article was, AFAICT, an attempt by
> the author Elinor Mills to elicit a wide range of views from
> industry professionals

I really don't care if you agree.. I wasn't stating an opinion in so
much as I was stating a fact..

>>> "Graham Cluley, senior technical consultant with Sophos anti-virus
>>> believes Raid could now be in big trouble. He said, "Raid is
>>> playing a very, very dangerous game. The US authorities have shown
>>> that they are prepared to pursue this sort of thing by any means."
>>
>> Yes, well; obviously that never happened. Raid didn't do anything
>> they could prove was illegal. Cluley was nothing more than a
>> glorified mouthpiece for Sophos antivirus.
>
> Is he not still?

AFAIK, he is.

>> Are you trying again to start trouble?
>
> Not at all!

No? Strange, considering you pasted an article which has nothing to do
with the conversation. What else would you bother pasting an article
badmouthing me?

>> Not that it matters much in this
>> case, Cluley was full of hot air looking for free media
>> publications (ie: free advertising for sophos). Back then, as they
>> still tend to do, many publications just take those individuals
>> word as if it comes from God himself.
>
> Reporters for magazines and newspapers have to take advice from
> *someone* and Graham Cluley has a good reputation I believe. Do you
> think otherwise?

Cluley has a reputation as being a mouthpiece, nothing more; nothing
less.

>> That article of Cluley's is well over 10 years old and has nothing
>> whatsoever to do with google groups OR mac malware. So why did you
>> feel the need to post a section of it and then point towards me?
>
> Did you actually read the cnet article? Do you know anything about
> the author? http://www.cnet.com/profile/elinormills/

I read the article when it was first published; I'm sure I have it
archived here someplace. Again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with
the conversation at hand; The reporter has written several other
articles, so there was no real valid reason for you to cite that one in
particular and reference me.

> Elinor is a Senior Writer - you may watch her chatting here if you
> wish: http://www.cnet.com/profile/elinormills/#videos

Again, this article has nothing to do with the conversation here.

> I wanted to make sure posters on Scorched-Earth know you for what
> you really are. I've read slanging matches between you and Graham on
> Google Groups, most of which I guess you'd like to be forgotten. For
> his part, I have *him* down in my 'good guy' book. Although I can't
> find you on Wikipedia, one may read a bit about Graham here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Cluley

To know me for what I really am? Yet, you quote a snippit of an article
written more than 10 years ago for this? Do you think I'm trying to
hide in some fashion and your doing the noble thing by preventing it?
Is that what you think is going on?

Why would you be able to find me on wikipedia? I'm nobodies mouth
piece. Your a sick ****, BD.




--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.

[Aardvark]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:41:00 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

> I wanted to make sure posters on Scorched-Earth know you for what you
> really are.

I, for one, don't give a **** what he did in previous incarnations. We
all grow up.



--
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.
Then I realised God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and
prayed for forgiveness." - Emo Phillips

[~BD~]

On 27/08/2010 01:04, Aardvark wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:41:00 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> I wanted to make sure posters on Scorched-Earth know you for what you
>> really are.
>
> I, for one, don't give a **** what he did in previous incarnations. We
> all grow up.
>

Believe it or not ..... IAWTP!

[StevieO]

Cross posting ****wit.

bd's little *****.


"Aardvark" <aardvark@youllnever.know> wrote in message
news:i56vdv$4hh$1@news.eternal-september.org...
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:41:00 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

> I wanted to make sure posters on Scorched-Earth know you for what you
> really are.

I, for one, don't give a **** what he did in previous incarnations. We
all grow up.



--
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.
Then I realised God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and
prayed for forgiveness." - Emo Phillips