How BugHunter Works; for those interested.

[Dustin Cook]

BugHunter uses a proprietary checksum algorithm that I developed over 14
years ago. In an effort to reduce scantime, BugHunter scans files ONLY
if they have a known filelength; IE: Known to BugHunter as potentially
being malicious. Once BugHunter takes a scan of the suspect file, it
gets two 32bit numbers in a specific order. If the numbers match the
record as well as the filelength in the correct order, BugHunter
considers it a valid match and looks the information up to give it a
more descriptive name, of course that depends on the record having a
matching description in one of the buginfo files.


I hope this will help with any questions you may have about what
BugHunter is, and what it is not. If you have any questions, I will
monitor this thread; you may respond here or in email.

Thanks for reading!

--
Dustin Cook
Author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool - v2.2c
email: bughunter.dustin@gmail.com.removethis
web..: http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
Pad..: http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/pad.xml

[4Q]

Dustbin Cook wrote:
> BugHunter uses a proprietary checksum algorithm that I developed over 14
> years ago.

You developed ey? Something cobbled
together more like.

> In an effort to reduce scantime, BugHunter scans files ONLY
> if they have a known filelength; IE: Known to BugHunter as potentially
> being malicious. Once BugHunter takes a scan of the suspect file, it
> gets two 32bit numbers in a specific order. If the numbers match the
> record as well as the filelength in the correct order, BugHunter
> considers it a valid match and looks the information up to give it a
> more descriptive name, of course that depends on the record having a
> matching description in one of the buginfo files.
>

Hmmm, it's a bit lacking on details of
how this "algorithm" works. Can we see
the mathematical analysis for this
whacked up bit of cobble code? Was is
published in a well known academic
journal for a rigorous critique by
crytographers or computer scientists?



>
> I hope this will help with any qu
estions you may have about what
> BugHunter is, and what it is not. If you have any questions, I will
> monitor this thread; you may respond here or in email.
>
> Thanks for reading!

If you aren't going to provide more
description or code for this "algorithm"
then I'd suggest anyone interested in
how checksummers work could pick up
several undergradute books on data
communication theory or cryptography.
Rather than wasting their time with
homemade crap whacked together in
dead of night by an bASIC wizard in his
Harry Potter themed "dungeon".

Lookup authors like William Stallings,
Andrew Tanenbaum. Read back issues
of Bruce Schneier's "Crypto-Gram"
newsletter for advice to wanna-be
proprietary algorithm developers. )


4Q

[Jack]

> Dustbin Cook wrote:
>> BugHunter uses a proprietary checksum algorithm that I developed over 14
>> years ago.
>
> You developed ey? Something cobbled
> together more like.
>
>> In an effort to reduce scantime, BugHunter scans files ONLY
>> if they have a known filelength; IE: Known to BugHunter as potentially
>> being malicious. Once BugHunter takes a scan of the suspect file, it
>> gets two 32bit numbers in a specific order. If the numbers match the
>> record as well as the filelength in the correct order, BugHunter
>> considers it a valid match and looks the information up to give it a
>> more descriptive name, of course that depends on the record having a
>> matching description in one of the buginfo files.
>>
>
> Hmmm, it's a bit lacking on details of
> how this "algorithm" works. Can we see
> the mathematical analysis for this
> whacked up bit of cobble code? Was is
> published in a well known academic
> journal for a rigorous critique by
> crytographers or computer scientists?
>
>
>
>>
>> I hope this will help with any qu estions you may have about what
>> BugHunter is, and what it is not. If you have any questions, I will
>> monitor this thread; you may respond here or in email.
>>
>> Thanks for reading!
>
> If you aren't going to provide more
> description or code for this "algorithm"
> then I'd suggest anyone interested in
> how checksummers work could pick up
> several undergradute books on data
> communication theory or cryptography.
> Rather than wasting their time with
> homemade crap whacked together in
> dead of night by an bASIC wizard in his
> Harry Potter themed "dungeon".
>
> Lookup authors like William Stallings,
> Andrew Tanenbaum. Read back issues
> of Bruce Schneier's "Crypto-Gram"
> newsletter for advice to wanna-be
> proprietary algorithm developers. )
>
>
> 4Q

thanks Dustin
I just LOVE that prog, as do many others.

[Dustin Cook]

Jack <gone@gonegone.com> wrote in
news:mn.1ba47d783ac2b8e0.70004@gonegone.com:

>
> thanks Dustin
> I just LOVE that prog, as do many others.

Your welcome, and thanks for your support. If you'd like to be placed on
the mailing list so that you recieve an email when updates are available
feel free to contact me. I do not keep uptodate posts here all the time. I
do it as a convenience to people, but I don't make much effort to keep
usenet informed. Hence the mailing list.


--
Dustin Cook
Author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool - v2.2c
email: bughunter.dustin@gmail.com.removethis
web..: http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
Pad..: http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/pad.xml

[Dustin Cook]

4Q <paul_zest@hushmail.com> wrote in
news:1186178765.339064.121310@19g2000hsx.googlegro ups.com:

> Dustbin Cook wrote:
>> BugHunter uses a proprietary checksum algorithm that I developed over
>> 14 years ago.
>
> You developed ey? Something cobbled
> together more like.
>
>> In an effort to reduce scantime, BugHunter scans files ONLY
>> if they have a known filelength; IE: Known to BugHunter as
>> potentially being malicious. Once BugHunter takes a scan of the
>> suspect file, it gets two 32bit numbers in a specific order. If the
>> numbers match the record as well as the filelength in the correct
>> order, BugHunter considers it a valid match and looks the information
>> up to give it a more descriptive name, of course that depends on the
>> record having a matching description in one of the buginfo files.
>>
>
> Hmmm, it's a bit lacking on details of
> how this "algorithm" works. Can we see
> the mathematical analysis for this
> whacked up bit of cobble code? Was is
> published in a well known academic
> journal for a rigorous critique by
> crytographers or computer scientists?
>
>
>
>>
>> I hope this will help with any qu
> estions you may have about what
>> BugHunter is, and what it is not. If you have any questions, I will
>> monitor this thread; you may respond here or in email.
>>
>> Thanks for reading!
>
> If you aren't going to provide more
> description or code for this "algorithm"
> then I'd suggest anyone interested in
> how checksummers work could pick up
> several undergradute books on data
> communication theory or cryptography.
> Rather than wasting their time with
> homemade crap whacked together in
> dead of night by an bASIC wizard in his
> Harry Potter themed "dungeon".
>
> Lookup authors like William Stallings,
> Andrew Tanenbaum. Read back issues
> of Bruce Schneier's "Crypto-Gram"
> newsletter for advice to wanna-be
> proprietary algorithm developers. )
>
>
> 4Q
>
>

My posting headers have been modified, I will not contribute to your auk
flamebait attempts; and you will not derail this into a tit for tat
flame war as you obviously do with other threads.

You will not recieve any code, period. Not now, not ever. The algorithm
is indeed of my own design, and in the 14 years since it's original use,
I've seen no reports of issues regarding it. I will not go into detail
on how it works any further than I already have. Everyone now has a
general idea, and it debunks your ignorant claim of BugHunter being a
string scanner in the least bit.

Spybot Search and Destroy as well as Lavasoft's Adaware and various
other programs, including most of your antivirus/malware products that
do self checks have naturally similiar technology; and they won't detail
it any further either. Get used to this idea, and 4Q, I don't claim it's
foolproof; You really should read the documentation sometime. In fact,

http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/BUGHUNT.TXT

"This program is offered without warranty of any kind. Although
BugHunter has been extensively tested, programs of this nature are not by
definition error proof and can therefore pose a potential risk to
your operating system due to a possible false positive. Always scan
first, and post the logfile to a spyware removal helpsite or
specialist if you're unsure, before taking the scan and kill
option."

Are you actually trying to bs people into thinking BugHunter is less safe
than the programs they already use? LOL! What a loon. Everyone develops
their own technology. And once again, I have to laughingly remind you,
since you don't know lighting either?, I call this place the dungeon due
to the lighting, It's a play on words. I'm not a fan of Harry Potter any
more so than your a welcome person in my home. LoL.

Come back with substance, lamer.

Oh, and you might as well update your page, unless you like being punched
repeatedly in the nose, not to mention how stupid you now appear to be,
what with your claims of string scanning.. HAHAHA. I told you originally
it's not a string scanner. The algorithm is clearly more advanced than
your capable of understanding. Haha.


--
Dustin Cook
Author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool - v2.2c
email: bughunter.dustin@gmail.com.removethis
web..: http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
Pad..: http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/pad.xml

[4Q]

Dustin Cook wrote:
> 4Q <paul_zest@hushmail.com> wrote in
> news:1186178765.339064.121310@19g2000hsx.googlegro ups.com:
>
> > Dustbin Cook wrote:
> >> BugHunter uses a proprietary checksum algorithm that I developed over
> >> 14 years ago.
> >
> > You developed ey? Something cobbled
> > together more like.
> >
> >> In an effort to reduce scantime, BugHunter scans files ONLY
> >> if they have a known filelength; IE: Known to BugHunter as
> >> potentially being malicious. Once BugHunter takes a scan of the
> >> suspect file, it gets two 32bit numbers in a specific order. If the
> >> numbers match the record as well as the filelength in the correct
> >> order, BugHunter considers it a valid match and looks the information
> >> up to give it a more descriptive name, of course that depends on the
> >> record having a matching description in one of the buginfo files.
> >>
> >
> > Hmmm, it's a bit lacking on details of
> > how this "algorithm" works. Can we see
> > the mathematical analysis for this
> > whacked up bit of cobble code? Was is
> > published in a well known academic
> > journal for a rigorous critique by
> > crytographers or computer scientists?
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I hope this will help with any qu
> > estions you may have about what
> >> BugHunter is, and what it is not. If you have any questions, I will
> >> monitor this thread; you may respond here or in email.
> >>
> >> Thanks for reading!
> >
> > If you aren't going to provide more
> > description or code for this "algorithm"
> > then I'd suggest anyone interested in
> > how checksummers work could pick up
> > several undergradute books on data
> > communication theory or cryptography.
> > Rather than wasting their time with
> > homemade crap whacked together in
> > dead of night by an bASIC wizard in his
> > Harry Potter themed "dungeon".
> >
> > Lookup authors like William Stallings,
> > Andrew Tanenbaum. Read back issues
> > of Bruce Schneier's "Crypto-Gram"
> > newsletter for advice to wanna-be
> > proprietary algorithm developers. )
> >
> >
> > 4Q
> >
> >
>
> My posting headers have been modified, I will not contribute to your auk
> flamebait attempts; and you will not derail this into a tit for tat
> flame war as you obviously do with other threads.

Dustbin, the AUK Kookologists shouldn't
be snipped out from your rantings, they
are big fans of yours. Look upon sharing
your posts with them as a form of help.
You need their expert analysis of your
state of mind, who knows one day you
might growup and stop calling your
basement a "dungeon".


4Q (a helper) ;]]


Rest of his nutball crap continues below
============

>
> You will not recieve any code, period. Not now, not ever. The algorithm
> is indeed of my own design, and in the 14 years since it's original use,
> I've seen no reports of issues regarding it. I will not go into detail
> on how it works any further than I already have. Everyone now has a
> general idea, and it debunks your ignorant claim of BugHunter being a
> string scanner in the least bit.
>
> Spybot Search and Destroy as well as Lavasoft's Adaware and various
> other programs, including most of your antivirus/malware products that
> do self checks have naturally similiar technology; and they won't detail
> it any further either. Get used to this idea, and 4Q, I don't claim it's
> foolproof; You really should read the documentation sometime. In fact,
>
> http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/BUGHUNT.TXT
>
> "This program is offered without warranty of any kind. Although
> BugHunter has been extensively tested, programs of this nature are not by
> definition error proof and can therefore pose a potential risk to
> your operating system due to a possible false positive. Always scan
> first, and post the logfile to a spyware removal helpsite or
> specialist if you're unsure, before taking the scan and kill
> option."
>
> Are you actually trying to bs people into thinking BugHunter is less safe
> than the programs they already use? LOL! What a loon. Everyone develops
> their own technology. And once again, I have to laughingly remind you,
> since you don't know lighting either?, I call this place the dungeon due
> to the lighting, It's a play on words. I'm not a fan of Harry Potter any
> more so than your a welcome person in my home. LoL.
>
> Come back with substance, lamer.
>
> Oh, and you might as well update your page, unless you like being punched
> repeatedly in the nose, not to mention how stupid you now appear to be,
> what with your claims of string scanning.. HAHAHA. I told you originally
> it's not a string scanner. The algorithm is clearly more advanced than
> your capable of understanding. Haha.
>
>
> --
> Dustin Cook
> Author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool - v2.2c
> email: bughunter.dustin@gmail.com.removethis
> web..: http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
>
Pad..:
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/pad.xml

[no.pencil.necks]

On Aug 4, 2:04 am, 4Q <paul_z...@hushmail.com> wrote:
> Dustin Cook wrote:
> > 4Q <paul_z...@hushmail.com> wrote in
> >news:1186178765.339064.121310@19g2000hsx.googlegr oups.com:
>
> > > Dustbin Cook wrote:
> > >> BugHunter uses a proprietary checksum algorithm that I developed over
> > >> 14 years ago.
>
> > > You developed ey? Something cobbled
> > > together more like.
>
> > >> In an effort to reduce scantime, BugHunter scans files ONLY
> > >> if they have a known filelength; IE: Known to BugHunter as
> > >> potentially being malicious. Once BugHunter takes a scan of the
> > >> suspect file, it gets two 32bit numbers in a specific order. If the
> > >> numbers match the record as well as the filelength in the correct
> > >> order, BugHunter considers it a valid match and looks the information
> > >> up to give it a more descriptive name, of course that depends on the
> > >> record having a matching description in one of the buginfo files.
>
> > > Hmmm, it's a bit lacking on details of
> > > how this "algorithm" works. Can we see
> > > the mathematical analysis for this
> > > whacked up bit of cobble code? Was is
> > > published in a well known academic
> > > journal for a rigorous critique by
> > > crytographers or computer scientists?
>
> > >> I hope this will help with any qu
> > > estions you may have about what
> > >> BugHunter is, and what it is not. If you have any questions, I will
> > >> monitor this thread; you may respond here or in email.
>
> > >> Thanks for reading!
>
> > > If you aren't going to provide more
> > > description or code for this "algorithm"
> > > then I'd suggest anyone interested in
> > > how checksummers work could pick up
> > > several undergradute books on data
> > > communication theory or cryptography.
> > > Rather than wasting their time with
> > > homemade crap whacked together in
> > > dead of night by an bASIC wizard in his
> > > Harry Potter themed "dungeon".
>
> > > Lookup authors like William Stallings,
> > > Andrew Tanenbaum. Read back issues
> > > of Bruce Schneier's "Crypto-Gram"
> > > newsletter for advice to wanna-be
> > > proprietary algorithm developers. )
>
> > > 4Q
>
> > My posting headers have been modified, I will not contribute to your auk
> > flamebait attempts; and you will not derail this into a tit for tat
> > flame war as you obviously do with other threads.
>
> Dustbin, the AUK Kookologists shouldn't
> be snipped out from your rantings, they
> are big fans of yours. Look upon sharing
> your posts with them as a form of help.
> You need their expert analysis of your
> state of mind, who knows one day you
> might growup and stop calling your
> basement a "dungeon".
>
> 4Q (a helper) ;]]
>
> Rest of his nutball crap continues below
> ============
>
>
>
>
>
> > You will not recieve any code, period. Not now, not ever. The algorithm
> > is indeed of my own design, and in the 14 years since it's original use,
> > I've seen no reports of issues regarding it. I will not go into detail
> > on how it works any further than I already have. Everyone now has a
> > general idea, and it debunks your ignorant claim of BugHunter being a
> > string scanner in the least bit.
>
> > Spybot Search and Destroy as well as Lavasoft's Adaware and various
> > other programs, including most of your antivirus/malware products that
> > do self checks have naturally similiar technology; and they won't detail
> > it any further either. Get used to this idea, and 4Q, I don't claim it's
> > foolproof; You really should read the documentation sometime. In fact,
>
> >http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/BUGHUNT.TXT
>
> > "This program is offered without warranty of any kind. Although
> > BugHunter has been extensively tested, programs of this nature are not by
> > definition error proof and can therefore pose a potential risk to
> > your operating system due to a possible false positive. Always scan
> > first, and post the logfile to a spyware removal helpsite or
> > specialist if you're unsure, before taking the scan and kill
> > option."
>
> > Are you actually trying to bs people into thinking BugHunter is less safe
> > than the programs they already use? LOL! What a loon. Everyone develops
> > their own technology. And once again, I have to laughingly remind you,
> > since you don't know lighting either?, I call this place the dungeon due
> > to the lighting, It's a play on words. I'm not a fan of Harry Potter any
> > more so than your a welcome person in my home. LoL.
>
> > Come back with substance, lamer.
>
> > Oh, and you might as well update your page, unless you like being punched
> > repeatedly in the nose, not to mention how stupid you now appear to be,
> > what with your claims of string scanning.. HAHAHA. I told you originally
> > it's not a string scanner. The algorithm is clearly more advanced than
> > your capable of understanding. Haha.
>
> > --
> > Dustin Cook
> > Author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool - v2.2c
> > email: bughunter.dus...@gmail.com.removethis
> > web..:http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
>
> Pad..:http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/pad.xml

Yoink.

4Q, I think Dust33 is thinking of "Al Gore Rhythm" which is probably
the Macarena dance.

This is no doubt the preferred dance of Dustbin that he performs so
willingly (and often) at the snap of you fingers. I think I hear you
cocking (easy, now, Dustin - author of BugPumper) your fingers even
now...

Dustfart, do you need a "pole" to dance? Like in a prison "pole".

You have not *YAWNED* in a while Dustin. Could you do *THAT* soon in
a reply so [we] know you are you? (Not Ewe.)

Can you *YAWN* *AND* dance at the same time? Please do.

n.p.n

[4Q]

no.pencil.necks wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2:04 am, 4Q <paul_z...@hushmail.com> wrote:
> > Dustin Cook wrote:
> > > 4Q <paul_z...@hushmail.com> wrote in
> > >news:1186178765.339064.121310@19g2000hsx.googlegr oups.com:
> >
> > > > Dustbin Cook wrote:
> > > >> BugHunter uses a proprietary checksum algorithm that I developed over
> > > >> 14 years ago.
> >
> > > > You developed ey? Something cobbled
> > > > together more like.
> >
> > > >> In an effort to reduce scantime, BugHunter scans files ONLY
> > > >> if they have a known filelength; IE: Known to BugHunter as
> > > >> potentially being malicious. Once BugHunter takes a scan of the
> > > >> suspect file, it gets two 32bit numbers in a specific order. If the
> > > >> numbers match the record as well as the filelength in the correct
> > > >> order, BugHunter considers it a valid match and looks the information
> > > >> up to give it a more descriptive name, of course that depends on the
> > > >> record having a matching description in one of the buginfo files.
> >
> > > > Hmmm, it's a bit lacking on details of
> > > > how this "algorithm" works. Can we see
> > > > the mathematical analysis for this
> > > > whacked up bit of cobble code? Was is
> > > > published in a well known academic
> > > > journal for a rigorous critique by
> > > > crytographers or computer scientists?
> >
> > > >> I hope this will help with any qu
> > > > estions you may have about what
> > > >> BugHunter is, and what it is not. If you have any questions, I will
> > > >> monitor this thread; you may respond here or in email.
> >
> > > >> Thanks for reading!
> >
> > > > If you aren't going to provide more
> > > > description or code for this "algorithm"
> > > > then I'd suggest anyone interested in
> > > > how checksummers work could pick up
> > > > several undergradute books on data
> > > > communication theory or cryptography.
> > > > Rather than wasting their time with
> > > > homemade crap whacked together in
> > > > dead of night by an bASIC wizard in his
> > > > Harry Potter themed "dungeon".
> >
> > > > Lookup authors like William Stallings,
> > > > Andrew Tanenbaum. Read back issues
> > > > of Bruce Schneier's "Crypto-Gram"
> > > > newsletter for advice to wanna-be
> > > > proprietary algorithm developers. )
> >
> > > > 4Q
> >
> > > My posting headers have been modified, I will not contribute to your auk
> > > flamebait attempts; and you will not derail this into a tit for tat
> > > flame war as you obviously do with other threads.
> >
> > Dustbin, the AUK Kookologists shouldn't
> > be snipped out from your rantings, they
> > are big fans of yours. Look upon sharing
> > your posts with them as a form of help.
> > You need their expert analysis of your
> > state of mind, who knows one day you
> > might growup and stop calling your
> > basement a "dungeon".
> >
> > 4Q (a helper) ;]]
> >
> > Rest of his nutball crap continues below
> > ============
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > You will not recieve any code, period. Not now, not ever. The algorithm
> > > is indeed of my own design, and in the 14 years since it's original use,
> > > I've seen no reports of issues regarding it. I will not go into detail
> > > on how it works any further than I already have. Everyone now has a
> > > general idea, and it debunks your ignorant claim of BugHunter being a
> > > string scanner in the least bit.
> >
> > > Spybot Search and Destroy as well as Lavasoft's Adaware and various
> > > other programs, including most of your antivirus/malware products that
> > > do self checks have naturally similiar technology; and they won't detail
> > > it any further either. Get used to this idea, and 4Q, I don't claim it's
> > > foolproof; You really should read the documentation sometime. In fact,
> >
> > >http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/BUGHUNT.TXT
> >
> > > "This program is offered without warranty of any kind. Although
> > > BugHunter has been extensively tested, programs of this nature are not by
> > > definition error proof and can therefore pose a potential risk to
> > > your operating system due to a possible false positive. Always scan
> > > first, and post the logfile to a spyware removal helpsite or
> > > specialist if you're unsure, before taking the scan and kill
> > > option."
> >
> > > Are you actually trying to bs people into thinking BugHunter is less safe
> > > than the programs they already use? LOL! What a loon. Everyone develops
> > > their own technology. And once again, I have to laughingly remind you,
> > > since you don't know lighting either?, I call this place the dungeon due
> > > to the lighting, It's a play on words. I'm not a fan of Harry Potter any
> > > more so than your a welcome person in my home. LoL.
> >
> > > Come back with substance, lamer.
> >
> > > Oh, and you might as well update your page, unless you like being punched
> > > repeatedly in the nose, not to mention how stupid you now appear to be,
> > > what with your claims of string scanning.. HAHAHA. I told you originally
> > > it's not a string scanner. The algorithm is clearly more advanced than
> > > your capable of understanding. Haha.
> >
> > > --
> > > Dustin Cook
> > > Author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool - v2.2c
> > > email: bughunter.dus...@gmail.com.removethis
> > > web..:http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
> >
> > Pad..:http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/pad.xml
>
> Yoink.
>
> 4Q, I think Dust33 is thinking of "Al Gore Rhythm" which is probably
> the Macarena dance.
>
> This is no doubt the preferred dance of Dustbin that he performs so
> willingly (and often) at the snap of you fingers. I think I hear you
> cocking (easy, now, Dustin - author of BugPumper) your fingers even
> now...
>
> Dustfart, do you need a "pole" to dance? Like in a prison "pole".
>
> You have not *YAWNED* in a while Dustin. Could you do *THAT* soon in
> a reply so [we] know you are you? (Not Ewe.)
>
> Can you *YAWN* *AND* dance at the same time? Please do.
>
> n.p.n

*Yawn* and *Dance* at the same time!
Have you not seen his Mr. Hand's gives
Dustbin a pole to swing 'n dance on,
video?

http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/sickness.htm


4Q

[4Q]

Dustin Cook wrote:
> 4Q <paul_zest@hushmail.com> wrote in
> news:1186178765.339064.121310@19g2000hsx.googlegro ups.com:
>
> > Dustbin Cook wrote:
> >> BugHunter uses a proprietary checksum algorithm that I developed over
> >> 14 years ago.

<snip>

>
> Come back with substance, lamer.
>

Okay, how about this.

> Oh, and you might as well update your page, unless you like being punched
> repeatedly in the nose, not to mention how stupid you now appear to be,
> what with your claims of string scanning.. HAHAHA. I told you originally
> it's not a string scanner. The algorithm is clearly more advanced than
> your capable of understanding. Haha.
>

You stated I had no understanding of
how checksummers worked a while back,
along with this assumption you also
assummed I didn't know anything about
code (I think Assembly language might
have been mention a few times too).

So I published Assembly code I authored
with a system that used a checksummer
algorithm. The code I wrote was developed
from first principles understanding of
how the "algorithm" works. Does that
have enough substance for you?

I can give you a reference to a very
good book if you like, this book
is quiet old (1987) but it clearly
explains how industry standard algorithms
are translated into working code.
Lookup chapter 19 "CRC Calculations"
it explains the maths and principles
behind a 'proven' checksumming system.

"C Programmer's Guide to Serial Communications"
by Joe Campbell, published by
Howard W Sams & Company

Also, here is a book that can still be
got hold of, even a numpty like you
can hand over cash and get it. So rather
than trying to reinvent the wheel here
is a computer science / mathematics
cookbook full of "algorithms"

"Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of
Scientific Computing"
by William H. Press et al,
published by Cambridge University Press


See if you can get one of your groundhog
friends to put on a Harry Potter wizards
outfit and teach you how to look for
the mystical proven "algorithms", it's
not magic!, just good old solid CS ;]]

4Q

[4Q]

Dustbin Cook wrote:
> 4Q <paul_zest@hushmail.com> wrote in
> news:1186178765.339064.121310@19g2000hsx.googlegro ups.com:
>
> > Dustbin Cook wrote:
> >> BugHunter uses a proprietary checksum algorithm that I developed over
> >> 14 years ago.

<snip>


> Come back with substance, lamer.
>

Okay, how about this.

> Oh, and you might as well update your page, unless you like being punched
> repeatedly in the nose, not to mention how stupid you now appear to be,
> what with your claims of string scanning.. HAHAHA. I told you originally
> it's not a string scanner. The algorithm is clearly more advanced than
> your capable of understanding. Haha.
>

You stated I had no understanding of
how checksummers worked a while back,
along with this assumption you also
assummed I didn't know anything about
code (I think Assembly language might
have been mention a few times too).

So I published Assembly code I authored
with a system that used a checksummer
algorithm. The code I wrote was developed
from first principles understanding of
how the "algorithm" works. Does that
have enough substance for you?

I can give you a reference to a very
good book if you like, this book
is quite old (1987) but it clearly
explains how industry standard algorithms
are translated into working code.
Lookup chapter 19 "CRC Calculations"
it explains the maths and principles
behind a 'proven' checksumming system.

"C Programmer's Guide to Serial Communications"
by Joe Campbell, published by
Howard W Sams & Company

Also, here is a book that can still be
got hold of, even a numpty like you
can hand over cash and get it. So rather
than trying to reinvent the wheel here
is a computer science / mathematics
cookbook full of "algorithms"

"Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of
Scientific Computing"
by William H. Press et al,
published by Cambridge University Press


See if you can get one of your groundhog
friends to put on a Harry Potter wizards
outfit and teach you how to look for
the mystical proven "algorithms", it's
not magic!, just good old solid CS ;]]

4Q