Jay T. Blocksom <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in
news:6qh9lvc164c03drvjqtqjo5p9ei731eh4r@news.rcn.c om:
I don't know why I borther. Those of us who live in the real world, know
that some protection is better then none.
Aaron
--
Want to learn how to use Winboard and the 150+ free Winboard
Chess engines?Visit http://www.aarontay.per.sg/Winboard/
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 00:29:43 -0400, Jay T. Blocksom
<usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:
> which "Spywareblaster" (like all other similar
>after-the-fact "band-aids") is inherently inapable of addressing.
Adaware & SpybotSD are after-the-fact but valuable band-aids.
SpywareBlaster doesn't scan and clean for spyware - it prevents
it from ever being installed.
http://www.wilderssecurity.net/spywareblaster.html
Another pro-active method is:
IE-SPYAD (Internet Explorer Restricted sites list) Ad server
sites that are in the Restricted zone will not be able to do
their nastiness, 706 Targets as of today.
http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/resource.htm
BoB
'Twas Wed, 03 Sep 2003 00:29:46 -0400 when all alt.privacy.spyware stood
in awe as Jay T. Blocksom <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net>
uttered:
>Only if the program in quesiton does not *also* offer the
>ability to update via more conventional means (such as downloading the new
>version, or updated database, or whatever, via one's normal methods, then
>installing it per best practice just like any other application), does the
>inclusion of such a "feature" necessarily constitute a liability.
There is a danger in autoupdate, even if it's opt-in. Updating in general
is dangerous, and autoupdate makes it happen much faster. Suppose someone
hacks the MS Windows Update site. It doesn't have to be hacked from
outside; it could be a disgruntled employee. We could have millions and
millions of systems wiped clean before MS can stop it.
--
RB |\ © Randall Bart
aa |/ admin@RandallBart.spam.com Barticus@att.spam.net
nr |\ Please reply without spam I LOVE YOU 1-917-715-0831
dt ||\ http://RandallBart.com/ Ånåheim Ångels 2002 World Chåmps!
a |/ Multiple sclerosis: http://www.cbc.ca/webone/alison/
l |\ DOT-HS-808-065 The Church Of The Unauthorized Truth:
l |/ MS^7=6/28/107 http://yg.cotut.com mailto:s@cotut.com
Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 22:03:54 -0000, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "Dick
> Hazeleger" <Dick@post_it_in_the_newsgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > It is strike two, I agree, Jay, but I was pointing the OP's
> attention > to the fact that - like many AV and AT programs - they
> need to be > updated immediately after installation.
> >
> [snip]
>
> All well and good; but that is beside the point(s) that I was
> attempting to get across.
>
> > I DISagree however that the program is "useless", perhaps for
> you... [snip]
>
> Actually, I said "essentially pointless"; and I stand by that
> assessment.
>
> > but for thousands of others who don't want to dig in their system
> this > a fine and free solution...
> [snip]
>
> It's not a "solution" to anything -- it merely hides one of the
> symptoms of a much larger underlying problem. In that sense, it can
> be reasonably argued that it is *worse*than* useless.
>
> > Wake up Jay, the world doesn't contain only
> > "experts" (as the last few weeks have shown all too clearly).
> [snip]
>
> All the more reason to NOT give them misinformation, or imply that
> treating a symptom is equivalent to (or an acceptable substitute for)
> curing the disease.
>
> > Experts
> > who tell people that a firewall is usefull only for cable and xDSL
> > users...
> [snip]
>
> Whom or what might you be referring to here? I know that I never said
> that.
>
> > Yeah.. well, I saw an "open system" being infected with
> > blaster seconds after the connection to the Internet was made...
> that > says enough IMNSHO!
> [snip]
>
> Based on your fuller description of that incident elsewhere, I'd say
> that was more an indictment of the system setup (specifically
> including, but not limited to, the use of Windows XP) than anything
> else.
>
> > IMO one can better be too conscious than too
> > ignorant!
> >
> [snip]
>
> I'm sorry, but my parser just broke while trying to make any sense
> out of that sentence. Care to try again?
In one word: Neen! Als je zo'n last van mijn "slechte Engels" hebt,
probeer het dan maar eens met Nederlands. Meneer Blocksom, u bent god
niet!
Dick
On 3 Sep 2003 17:32:34 +0800, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Aaron
<aarontaycheehsien@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Jay T. Blocksom <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in
> news:6qh9lvc164c03drvjqtqjo5p9ei731eh4r@news.rcn.c om:
>
> I don't know why I borther. Those of us who live in the real world, know
> that some protection is better then none.
>
>
> Aaron
First, please be more careful with your quoting and attributions. I did not
write the material you ascribed to me above; you did.
Second, I also never said anything which would contradict the sentiment you
expressed in your second sentence; but I will note that if you delude
yourself into thinking the "half a loaf" approach is an adequate substitute
for doing a job *right*, then you may indeed be *worse* off, overall -- and
this applies regardless of the context.
--
Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 21:04:20 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, BoB
<rhoward30@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 00:29:43 -0400, Jay T. Blocksom
> <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:
>
> > which "Spywareblaster" (like all other similar
> >after-the-fact "band-aids") is inherently inapable of addressing.
>
> Adaware & SpybotSD are after-the-fact but valuable band-aids.
>
[snip]
I think the more fitting description would be "diagnostic tools"; but yes,
you are correct: It would be better to not contract the "disease" requiring
diagnosis in the first place -- which is precisely the point I've been
trying (largely unsuccessfully, it would seem) to get across to some folks.
> SpywareBlaster doesn't scan and clean for spyware - it prevents
> it from ever being installed.
[snip]
That is indeed the "company line" from their website, word for word; but it
is at best a gross exaggeration, to the point of being disingenuously
misleading. More plainly: It's a pile of bullsh*t -- "Spywareblaster" is
INCAPABLE of making good on that claim except in the context of one very
specific subset of "spyware"; and even then, it constitutes an answer to a
question that no one in their right mind would ask. Hence: pointless.
> Another pro-active method is:
>
> IE-SPYAD (Internet Explorer Restricted sites list)
[snip]
Which is also pointless, for much the same reasons as apply to
"Spywareblaster". And it too is by definition incapable of being completely
effective, unlike the *correct* cure for that particular disease:
<http://www.litepc.com/ieradicator.html>
--
Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 23:11:23 -0000, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "Dick
Hazeleger" <Dick@post_it_in_the_newsgroup.com> wrote:
>
> Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm sorry, but my parser just broke while trying to make any sense
> > out of that sentence. Care to try again?
[snip]
>
> In one word: Neen! Als je zo'n last van mijn "slechte Engels" hebt,
> probeer het dan maar eens met Nederlands. Meneer Blocksom, u bent god
> niet!
>
> Dick
Well, with the help of <http://www.freetranslation.com/>, it would appear
that you're saying that English is not your primary language. In which
case, it's probably worth explicitly pointing out that I meant no insult by
the above-quoted paragraph. But this also might well explain why you seem
to have seriously misunderstood some of the things I've said.
--
Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 04:53:22 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Randall Bart
<Barticus@att.spam.net> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> There is a danger in autoupdate, even if it's opt-in.
[snip]
Agreed, which is (one reason) why "opting in" is not a very good idea.
> Updating in general
> is dangerous, and autoupdate makes it happen much faster. Suppose
> someone hacks the MS Windows Update site. It doesn't have to be hacked
> from outside; it could be a disgruntled employee. We could have millions
> and millions of systems wiped clean before MS can stop it.
Well... I think that is a rather far-fetched example, but not an entirely
inappropriate one, considering:
<http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=75&u=/nf/20030827/tc_nf/22171&printer=1>
;-)
--
Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'Twas Sat, 06 Sep 2003 19:20:20 -0400 when all alt.privacy.spyware stood
in awe as Jay T. Blocksom <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net>
uttered:
> > Suppose
> > someone hacks the MS Windows Update site. It doesn't have to be hacked
> > from outside; it could be a disgruntled employee. We could have millions
> > and millions of systems wiped clean before MS can stop it.
>
>Well... I think that is a rather far-fetched example, but not an entirely
>inappropriate one, considering:
>
><http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=75&u=/nf/20030827/tc_nf/22171&printer=1>
It is ironic that Microsoft.com is being served via Linux, but in their
position Akamai makes sense. I don't know how hackable Akamai is. I have
no love for Akamai. My browser has been crashed hundreds of times by
content served up by Akamai, but that's because Akamai has no standards
for the content they distribute.
I imagine that someone who hacked Akamai would only get part of their
network. Still, such hacker might get his malware out to tens of
thousands of systems. But let's look at the prospects for an inside job.
If I were a Microsoft programmer who is going postal, my attack would work
as follows: My patch goes into the normal Wednesday update. This trojan
is programmed to sit quietly until early Friday morning (Redmond time),
when it wipes the disk clean. It's also programmed that if the blowup
time has already passed when it is installed, it does nothing. If time
has not passed when it's installed, but passes while the computer is off,
it takes effect when the computer comes up. Also if the computer clock
has been set backwards while the computer is off, the trojan takes effect
immediately.
On Wednesday a few computers with their clocks set ahead blowup, but not
enough to discern a pattern. On Thursday a bunch more PCs die, but
compared to the millions of downloads it's a drop in the bucket. Enough
people have installed the patch without incident that no one sees the
connection. Late Thursday, calls start rolling in from New Zealand,
Australia, Japan, Hong Kong. Computers with the date and time set
correctly, but the time zone set wrong are being hit.
Microsoft knows they have a crisis, but what to do? They shut down the
update site on general principles. Now what? Assume they promptly
diagnose the exact cause. They sound the alarm, but what do they say?
Many people will turn on their computers before they hear the warning.
Even those who hear the warning will be stuck for days waiting for a fix
from MS. Million of people who didn't download the trojan will leave
their computers off out of fear. The whole affair will cost enough
billions of dollars to make the world's richest man wince.
I realize that by posting this scheme publicly I am putting ideas into the
heads of hackers. I hope I am also putting ideas into the heads of
Microsoft's security team.
--
RB |\ © Randall Bart
aa |/ admin@RandallBart.spam.com Barticus@att.spam.net
nr |\ Please reply without spam I LOVE YOU 1-917-715-0831
dt ||\ http://RandallBart.com/ Ånåheim Ångels 2002 World Chåmps!
a |/ Multiple sclerosis: http://www.cbc.ca/webone/alison/
l |\ DOT-HS-808-065 The Church Of The Unauthorized Truth:
l |/ MS^7=6/28/107 http://yg.cotut.com mailto:s@cotut.com
Randall Bart <Barticus@att.spam.net> wrote in
newsrnmlvg2ik8a03goh5nbpfvqlv715faab7@4ax.com:
> If I were a Microsoft programmer who is going postal, my attack would
> work as follows:
>
I am glad you are on our side.
data64
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote