HiJackThis is now Open Source

[§ñühwö£f]

~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
news:gfudnZulffqy2dTSnZ2dnUVZ8lOdnZ2d@bt.com:

> §ñühwö£f wrote:
>
>> Because he dosn't know how to boot his macintosh from a linux live cd
>> and do it safely?
>>
>>
>
> Why would anyone want to do such a thing in the first place?
>
> Makes no sense to me!
>
>
Go stand in the corner, dimmy.


--
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://stopbeck.com|www.snuhwolf.9f....eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\

[Bullwinkle.]

LOL Only in your wildest man love dream with
the dope head drunk mick.


"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:1eqdnUMXcsAbztTSnZ2dnUVZ7sWdnZ2d@bt.com...
Tiddlywinkle blurted it's usual crap, viz:-

> To err is human. To forgive is not my policy!

Good job you are just a sock, then, eh?!!

[~BD~]

§ñühwö£f wrote:
> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
> news:gfudnZulffqy2dTSnZ2dnUVZ8lOdnZ2d@bt.com:
>
>> §ñühwö£f wrote:
>>
>>> Because he dosn't know how to boot his macintosh from a linux live cd
>>> and do it safely?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why would anyone want to do such a thing in the first place?
>>
>> Makes no sense to me!
>>
>>
> Go stand in the corner, dimmy.

:-)

Whilst standing there, I happened across this:-

Quote:

Not necessarily, no. This dummy virus doesn't actually cause any
damage to the system. However it does make changes to the registry
from the command line.

Now the one I wrote back in the days of Windows 95/98, did. It
rendered the hard drive un bootable. In other words, once the victim
restarted their computer it halted on a black screen with the words
"Missing operating system" as it deleted key boot files; io.sys,
msdos.sys and command.com.

The only recourse from that (should one be so lucky) is to boot from a
system diskette and "sys" the drive from the command line.

Issuing the command: sys C: would fix that by putting those files back
onto the hard drive.

I also had two files from the Windows directory being targeted as
well.. they were user.dat and user.da0. Which meant that any and all
programs that were installed would have to be reinstalled again since
the system's registry would be gone too.

A "dummy virus" is so named due to the fact there are no actual virus
code antivirus software could scan for. These were merely batch files
(files that use the .bat extension) that contained commands the
computer would recognize and execute.

If I really wanted to be devious I could use something like this in a
batch file....

@ECHO OFF
CD/
attrib -r -a -s -h ntldr
del ntldr
ECHO.
ECHO Please restart your system...
ECHO.

In the above example, regardless what directory that was ran from it
would go right to the root of the drive. At that point it would remove
the read only, archive, system and hidden attributes to ntldr then
delete the file without confirmation.

But that would render the system inoperable and display the "NTLDR
missing" message. My method makes things more interesting due to the
simple fact that I could use the command: net view \\ip.addy.goes.here
to look for the shared drive. Unless I knew the IP address was static.

Then once I found it issue the command net use * \\ip.addy.goes.here\C
to map the drive. It basically allows me to see the hard drive in My
Computer as though it were physically attached to my system by adding
another drive letter. Then I could do whatever I wanted.. copy
files\folders from their hard drive to mine or vice versa, move
files\folders around, delete files, rename files, etc.. and they would
never know.

**

I'm wondering if the author is correct in what he claims. Some guidance
on this will be welcomed!

--
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."

[Peter Foldes]

"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:HqKdnXsBqdHui9fSnZ2dnUVZ8q6dnZ2d@bt.com...

> I'm wondering if the author is correct in what he claims. Some guidance on this
> will be welcomed!

This is over your head and your intelligence. Go to church this Sunday morning and
ask for forgiveness for all the stupid idiotic posts that you make accusing innocent
people of being bad. You are the bad one who should be hung by his balls with a note
attached ***Here hangs the lying Troll***.

JS

[~BD~]

Peter Foldes wrote:
>
> "~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
> news:HqKdnXsBqdHui9fSnZ2dnUVZ8q6dnZ2d@bt.com...
>
>> I'm wondering if the author is correct in what he claims. Some
>> guidance on this will be welcomed!
>
> This is over your head and your intelligence. Go to church this Sunday
> morning and ask for forgiveness for all the stupid idiotic posts that
> you make accusing innocent people of being bad. You are the bad one who
> should be hung by his balls with a note attached ***Here hangs the lying
> Troll***.
>
> JS


Good morning JS :-)

I found it most interesting - it's almost identical in nature to the
attack you folk made on my computer over at Annexcafe, isn't it?

Remember that? When you got so frustrated because I was actually using
two separate machines so that I could maintain discussion?

I've told you so many, many times - I tell *ONLY* the truth! :-D

FYI
HTH
HAND

--
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."

[Bullwinkle.]

"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
newst2dnVp4Uffcs73SnZ2dnUVZ8lednZ2d@bt.com...
bd is a Thief:
----- Original Message -----
From: "~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.scorched-earth
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: Brat Girl ... Meditating In The Chinaberry Tree


Mike Easter wrote:
> ~BD~ wrote:
>> http://i39.tinypic.com/ortto7.gif
>>
>> I hope this isn't copyright material!
>
> It is.
>
> There's a copyright symbol on Pat Crowley's (and Betty's)
> Brisbee-related and other page/s.
>
>
>

Good job I didn't steal it then!

It's 'open source' here on Usenet!

bd lies:
"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:iv-dnSBgl77Q84DSnZ2dnUVZ8iydnZ2d@bt.com...
Mike Easter wrote:
> ~BD~ wrote:
> A person could claim to tell the truth (for the most part) but sometimes
> lie or tell an 'untruth' or be mistaken or fail to tell the 'whole truth
> and nothing but the truth' by omission.

OK - I'll admit to "fail to tell the 'whole truth and nothing but the
truth' by omission."

bd tries to bully women:
----- Original Message -----
From: "~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.scorched-earth
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: An old friend passes on



I've been more than fair to you, S*******. If you really don't wish to
start afresh in 2012 then be prepared for pain - *real* pain! Your call.

[Bullwinkle.]

That is itself a lie.

You have not told the truth on why you were forced out of the Navy.

then there is you admitting you lie:

"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:iv-dnSBgl77Q84DSnZ2dnUVZ8iydnZ2d@bt.com...
Mike Easter wrote:
> ~BD~ wrote:
> A person could claim to tell the truth (for the most part) but sometimes
> lie or tell an 'untruth' or be mistaken or fail to tell the 'whole truth
> and nothing but the truth' by omission.

OK - I'll admit to "fail to tell the 'whole truth and nothing but the
truth' by omission."

"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:GsWdnVAHBId_gdfSnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d@bt.com...
I've told you so many, many times - I tell *ONLY* the truth!

[FromTheRafters]

~BD~ wrote:
> §ñühwö£f wrote:
>> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>> news:gfudnZulffqy2dTSnZ2dnUVZ8lOdnZ2d@bt.com:
>>
>>> §ñühwö£f wrote:
>>>
>>>> Because he dosn't know how to boot his macintosh from a linux live cd
>>>> and do it safely?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why would anyone want to do such a thing in the first place?
>>>
>>> Makes no sense to me!
>>>
>>>
>> Go stand in the corner, dimmy.
>
> :-)
>
> Whilst standing there, I happened across this:-
>
> Quote:
>
> Not necessarily, no. This dummy virus doesn't actually cause any
> damage to the system. However it does make changes to the registry
> from the command line.
>
> Now the one I wrote back in the days of Windows 95/98, did. It
> rendered the hard drive un bootable. In other words, once the victim
> restarted their computer it halted on a black screen with the words
> "Missing operating system" as it deleted key boot files; io.sys,
> msdos.sys and command.com.
>
> The only recourse from that (should one be so lucky) is to boot from a
> system diskette and "sys" the drive from the command line.
>
> Issuing the command: sys C: would fix that by putting those files back
> onto the hard drive.
>
> I also had two files from the Windows directory being targeted as
> well.. they were user.dat and user.da0. Which meant that any and all
> programs that were installed would have to be reinstalled again since
> the system's registry would be gone too.
>
> A "dummy virus" is so named due to the fact there are no actual virus
> code antivirus software could scan for. These were merely batch files
> (files that use the .bat extension) that contained commands the
> computer would recognize and execute.
>
> If I really wanted to be devious I could use something like this in a
> batch file....
>
> @ECHO OFF
> CD/
> attrib -r -a -s -h ntldr
> del ntldr
> ECHO.
> ECHO Please restart your system...
> ECHO.
>
> In the above example, regardless what directory that was ran from it
> would go right to the root of the drive. At that point it would remove
> the read only, archive, system and hidden attributes to ntldr then
> delete the file without confirmation.
>
> But that would render the system inoperable and display the "NTLDR
> missing" message. My method makes things more interesting due to the
> simple fact that I could use the command: net view \\ip.addy.goes.here
> to look for the shared drive. Unless I knew the IP address was static.
>
> Then once I found it issue the command net use * \\ip.addy.goes.here\C
> to map the drive. It basically allows me to see the hard drive in My
> Computer as though it were physically attached to my system by adding
> another drive letter. Then I could do whatever I wanted.. copy
> files\folders from their hard drive to mine or vice versa, move
> files\folders around, delete files, rename files, etc.. and they would
> never know.
>
> **
>
> I'm wondering if the author is correct in what he claims. Some guidance
> on this will be welcomed!
>
It is wrong to call it a virus, dummy or otherwise.

[~BD~]

FromTheRafters wrote:
> ~BD~ wrote:
>> §ñühwö£f wrote:
>>> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>>> news:gfudnZulffqy2dTSnZ2dnUVZ8lOdnZ2d@bt.com:
>>>
>>>> §ñühwö£f wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Because he dosn't know how to boot his macintosh from a linux live cd
>>>>> and do it safely?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why would anyone want to do such a thing in the first place?
>>>>
>>>> Makes no sense to me!
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Go stand in the corner, dimmy.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Whilst standing there, I happened across this:-
>>
>> Quote:
>>
>> Not necessarily, no. This dummy virus doesn't actually cause any
>> damage to the system. However it does make changes to the registry
>> from the command line.
>>
>> Now the one I wrote back in the days of Windows 95/98, did. It
>> rendered the hard drive un bootable. In other words, once the victim
>> restarted their computer it halted on a black screen with the words
>> "Missing operating system" as it deleted key boot files; io.sys,
>> msdos.sys and command.com.
>>
>> The only recourse from that (should one be so lucky) is to boot from a
>> system diskette and "sys" the drive from the command line.
>>
>> Issuing the command: sys C: would fix that by putting those files back
>> onto the hard drive.
>>
>> I also had two files from the Windows directory being targeted as
>> well.. they were user.dat and user.da0. Which meant that any and all
>> programs that were installed would have to be reinstalled again since
>> the system's registry would be gone too.
>>
>> A "dummy virus" is so named due to the fact there are no actual virus
>> code antivirus software could scan for. These were merely batch files
>> (files that use the .bat extension) that contained commands the
>> computer would recognize and execute.
>>
>> If I really wanted to be devious I could use something like this in a
>> batch file....
>>
>> @ECHO OFF
>> CD/
>> attrib -r -a -s -h ntldr
>> del ntldr
>> ECHO.
>> ECHO Please restart your system...
>> ECHO.
>>
>> In the above example, regardless what directory that was ran from it
>> would go right to the root of the drive. At that point it would remove
>> the read only, archive, system and hidden attributes to ntldr then
>> delete the file without confirmation.
>>
>> But that would render the system inoperable and display the "NTLDR
>> missing" message. My method makes things more interesting due to the
>> simple fact that I could use the command: net view \\ip.addy.goes.here
>> to look for the shared drive. Unless I knew the IP address was static.
>>
>> Then once I found it issue the command net use * \\ip.addy.goes.here\C
>> to map the drive. It basically allows me to see the hard drive in My
>> Computer as though it were physically attached to my system by adding
>> another drive letter. Then I could do whatever I wanted.. copy
>> files\folders from their hard drive to mine or vice versa, move
>> files\folders around, delete files, rename files, etc.. and they would
>> never know.
>>
>> **
>>
>> I'm wondering if the author is correct in what he claims. Some guidance
>> on this will be welcomed!
>>
> It is wrong to call it a virus, dummy or otherwise.


Maybe you should tell Sycho that yourself?!! ;-)

How about commenting on the 'bat' file situation? I always value your
opinion on such matters.


--
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."

[Bullwinkle.]

"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:iv-dnSBgl77Q84DSnZ2dnUVZ8iydnZ2d@bt.com...
Mike Easter wrote:
> ~BD~ wrote:
> A person could claim to tell the truth (for the most part) but sometimes
> lie or tell an 'untruth' or be mistaken or fail to tell the 'whole truth
> and nothing but the truth' by omission.

OK - I'll admit to "fail to tell the 'whole truth and nothing but the
truth' by omission."