In article <1fcc7f07-eb69-4f1f-841b-c8783dcde9d7
@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, paul_zest@hushmail.com says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <1e7b37ae-489b-4ba0-be1f-
> > 7eb9ef3b99eb@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, paul_zest@hushmail.com
> > says...
> > > > > As you asked so nicely
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...ea8cae456080aa
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, but 6 commands do not make it a malware problem. In order to
> > >
> > > Sorry you don't know what the **** you
> > > are talking about... think of the "6
> > > commands" you mentioned as a redherring
> > > i.e. nothing much to do with Ant's
> > > original point re: the signature of the
> > > packer. Next time get a clue about why
> > > Ant put the first six lines of the ASIC disassembly up there before
> > > you make
> > > smartarse remarks.
> >
> > Sorry, but I'm not going to believe someone is a hack unless you can
> > prove, beyond a doubt, that they are being malicious. Those six commands
> > prove nothing without the rest of the code.
>
> hmmm I notice you're still going on
> about "those six commands"

Because that's all you've posted.

> > You posted this saying that you had proof and you've not shown any
> > proof, you've shown 6 commands that have no impact on anything the way
> > they are presented. Show the rest of the code, then document how it's
> > malicious (since I bet there only a handful here that can actually read
> > assembler) and you will have a case - until that time you're just
> > blowing hot air.
>
> You are a total clueless **** aren't
> ya. Forget the "6 commands" (like as if
> you'd know what they were anyhow!!!
> malicious or not. *hint* NOT). The
> disassembly was uploaded for Dust****s
> benefit, just to deflate his fat head
> with the *pin* Ant was holding. What
> you keep failing to observe is the
> hex signature, *CLUE* stop looking at
> the disassembled code and look at the
> hex signatures.

And you don't seem to understand that you've posted a snippet without
proof of where it came from, that we have no proof of what you claim,
that you've only blown hot air so far.

If you've got proof of some wrong doing, post it.

You also need to get a real Usenet service, as you lack all credibility
by not being able to properly post (not to mention your history in these
and other groups).

So, either post proof or appear as a liar again.

--

Leythos - spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 to email me)

Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like PCBUTTS 1.COM
that create filth and put it on the web for any kid to see: Just take a
look at some of the FILTH he's created and put on his website:
http://forums.speedguide.net/archive.../t-223485.html all exposed
to children (the link I've include does not directly display his filth).
You can find the same information by googling for 'PCBUTTS1' and
'exposed to kids'.