This post reposted for the wider
audience. LinuxLad thrashes Dustbin's
ass with some code 101 basics.
I'm still waiting for Dustbin to thnxU,
acknowledge my kind explanation of
how to setup a stackframe under ASIC
in Assembly via C. The very least he
could do is write the ASIC part and
compile the application to demonstrate
he actually understood how the C-ASM
works *shrug* Guess he's just too
stupid!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...c67622930ff20f
Anyway on with the show. This is how
things should be, Dustbin picks a fight
with someone he can't win and has his
arse exposed in public again.
4Q archives the posts for the Dustbin
story and narrates for the audience.
http://fourq.host.sk/chars/Dustin_Cook/
Enjoy the show
4Q
<Repost:>
-linux_lad wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:06:21 GMT, Dustin Cook
> <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >-linux_lad wrote in news:HOadnZPm5o-NUxfanZ2dnUVZ_obinZ2d@giganews.com:
> >
> >> ------------------------- begin message -------------------------
> >>
> >> On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 01:25:09 GMT, Dustin Cook
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Indeed. Yet, it's supposedly my "ego" that brings some
> >>>wannabe-amateurs like linuxlad out of the woodwork. Yes, I know, I
> >>>said amateur..
> >>
> >> I continue to be amazed by your resorcefulness in finding new ways to
> >> rehash old arguments. Yes, it's true that you were correct in your
> >> assertion that your language lacks fundamental features like the
> >> ability to seed the random function properly. My bad for not
> >> recognizing how primitive Asic is. It appears not to be capable of
> >> floating point math either, so you have to burn lots of extra cycles
> >> to simulate it.
> >
> >I guess you never looked at the archive or the manual that was made
> >available to you. The random function can be seeded with randomize as the
> >manual clearly explains. Asic itself has a small command set (80) built
> >in, yes. However, thru the use of external libraries one can easily
> >extend this to hundreds if not thousands of routines.
> >
> >Asic is also capable of floating point; aka decimal math; as defined in
> >the manual.
> >
> >
> >> I believe I apologized profusely for blaming you for the shortcomings
> >> of your language, but instead of accepting it graciously, you continue
> >
> >Yes, I believe you did. I considered it your way of trying to evade from
> >the points brought up. You *tried* to "educate" me on a langauge that
> >you've never programmed in. Instead of apologizing for making an ass of
> >yourself, you tried to blame Asic for your own ignorance concerning it.
>
> Asic by default does not support floating point. It has to be turned
> on, which means it's primitive by any standard. It also does not
> support but a few math functions and the four basic operations. The
> manual implies that it can support up to (only) five decimal places.
> The author indicates that supports a subset of GWBASIC, which is
> essentially a subset of QUICKBASIC. It's for beginners, not masters.
>
> >
> >Your not of the same calibre of programmer as I am, sir; And with the
>
> I agree.
>
> >assinine egotistical attitude you've displayed here, you never will be.
> >> Your code:
> >>
> >> randomize
> >> a=rnd(0)
> >> a=a mod 1
> >>
> >> On the third line, you set a to 0. There is no reason to do this, you
> >> could have just said "a=0", since any whole number mod 1 will return
> >> zero.
> >
> >Wow. I could have done it several ways, your point? Are you ignorant
> >enough to assume there is only one way to do something? Or are you
> >wanting another skull**** in Asic?
>
> The point is you didn't even know what mod did. If you did know, you
> could have just said:
>
> a=0
>
> instead of
> >> a=rnd(0)
> >> a=a mod 1
>
> Any benefit you gained by setting "a" to a random number was lost when
> you mod 1 it because the value is now zero.
>
> >
> >> a
> >> lardass, he works as a security consultant at sophos, so that should
> >> be a clear indication of his technical background. Casting insults
> >
> >Heh, I've had many conversations with ol Fitzy, He and I go back a very
> >long time; and the insults are warranted my HLL only coding friend. Your
> >pal nick here whom you respect so much is a "macro" freak. His speciality
> >is macro viruses. He isn't actually ehm, *cough cough* a programmer. See
> >alt.comp.virus for posts from ol Fitzy, and try not choke to death on the
> >crow.
>
> He's a paid consultant for a notable av company. You are a well known
> troll. Embedded insults are never appropriate for anyone but sixteen
> year old scriptkiddies with misshapen egos.
>
> >
> >> include that text in your code, and Who did you think it was going to
> >> impress?
> >
> >You made the mistake of assuming the code was meant to impress someone.
> >It wasn't. It was designed to annoy people, it was never finished, no
> >virus of mine ever made use of any of it.
>
> It was a brag.
>
> >
> >> Now, on your claims of being almost clairvoyant:
> >
> >WTF?
> >
> >> Really Dustin, you claim you can accurately determine precisely what
> >> happens from a compiled binary? That's quite a marvelous skill. If
> >
> >
> >http://www.informit.com/articles/art...&seqNum=7&rl=1
> >http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarge...tion/0,,sid183
> >_gci507015,00.html
> >http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~csmweb/de...on/disasm.html
> >
> >*snip* rest of uneducated ramblings from an HLL kiddy.
> >
> >> secret. There
> >> would be no "warez", because all the major software companies'crown
> >> jewels would be copied and reproduced for pennies.
> >
> >There would be no warez without what now? You confuse me.
>
> Please Dustin, try to keep up. If any application could be reversed as
> easily as you claim, there would be no commercial software because
> there would be no economic incentive for writing it.
>
> >
> >
> >> Different behaviors manifest between different versions and
> >> functionality levels. There could be hundreds of supporting libraries
> >> which would have to be analyzed too.
> >
> >Not necessarily. At some point, your program is going to decide whether
> >the key is good or not right? I just have to ensure in the future that
> >the einvornment says the key is good, whether i even have one or not. And
> >if your executable code is based on a flag; and has executable code to
> >complete the disabled functions (which isn't a smart thing to do,
> >releasing fully functional yet crippled software) then one should be able
> >to ensure that code runs, regardless of the result of your so called
> >"complex" key verification routines.
>
> You need to understand how public key encryption works. There isn't a
> jump somewhere that decides if the key is vailid or not. The
> application needs the second half of the key to decrypt and read the
> protected code. Yes, lots of shareware can be cracked easily, but I
> seriously doubt you have the ability to deconstruct and replicate
> anything protected by me. I know it, in fact.
>
> >
> >> How come you're not the richest man in the world? How come the NSA
> >
> >Why is it, for someone who is in the warez scene; you don't know jack
> >**** about cracking those blessed apps?
>
> I'm not in the scene, and I know that your position is ridiculous. I
> will prove it by demonstrating that you cannot crack my app. Sure,
> someone might be able to if they could factor the public key, but you
> can't. You can't even create your own recursion engine.
>
> >
> >> You claimed you did a complete analysis, but nowhere did you attempt
> >> to
> >> analyze the messages after they left the host. I have your original
> >> analysis if you need a refresher on what you posted. I merely pointed
> >
> >A refresher on what I posted? *laughing*, Sir my original post had to be
> >brought to your attention. Your the one who spoke before reading.
>
> From your analysis:
>
> begin
> I have allowed both programs virtual access to a network, and
> monitoring the packet data. I have found nothing encrypted, nothing
> hidden, and no personal identification information that's any
> different than what your machine would send to a server anyway.
>
> Ie: As far as I can tell so far, neither program calls home, neither
> program has routines to call home. Both programs pass along the
> information you provide to the windows tcpip stack, they make no
> effort to contact any servers/ips outside that string.
> end
>
> Nowhere did you mention any examination of the log files on the NNTP
> server. In fact, it's highly unlikely you had any access to the logs.
> As I have previously explained, the misbehavior I demonstrated would
> not trigger any alerts under normal circumstances.
>
> I have seen other people post suspicions that the message ID was
> somehow adulterated. How did you verify it wasn't? You made no mention
> of the code which generated the MID, and in fact, posted nothing but
> your opinion. I don't even think you knew where to look because if you
> did, you would have posted it.
>
>
> >
> >I analyzed the program; I found nothing malicious. and no malicious
> >activities. If I had, It would happily be hunted by BugHunter. I am not
> >biased when it concerns malicious software. I don't care who writes it.
>
> I agree that you analyzed it. What I disagree with is that your
> opinion without a shred of supporting documentation is enough for me
> or anyone for that matter.
>
> >
> >> to even consider the most important issue, whether on not it was doing
> >
> >I'd suggest you re-read the post, if you think that's the case, sir. Or,
> >find the original post with my analysis.
>
> See above.
>
> >
> >> You also indicated that it was written in Visual C. That is incorrect,
> >> it was written in Visual C . The programming languages C and C are
> >> similar in some respects but are fundamentally different in other
> >> ways. For instance, C does not support objects or classes, and C is
> >> procedural (like Basic).
>
> My signing engine stripped the pluses because I did not escape them.
> PowerPost is written in Visual CPP (plus plus) but you stated Visual
> C. There is a big difference between those languages.
>
> >
> >I don't know what your disagreing with...?
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>I'm sorry, but I can't help but call the guy an amateur, after that
> >>>education he supposedly tried offering me on a language he has no clue
> >>>about. Rather than just outright accept defeat, he'd rather blame the
> >>>language for his own misassumptions concerning it.
> >>
> >> Asic is an antiquated and rarely used language. When was the last
> >
> >And this somehow changes what I said?
>
> What it shows is that you have failed to advance your skill set and
> remain hobbled in a technology that went out of style many years ago.
> This is proof that you are not the master coder you make yourself out
> to me. You are driving around town in a volkswagen beetle screaming
> insults at bicyclists because you have modest driving skills.
>
> >
> >> Why have other languages taken over? There is a reason modern
> >> applications aren't written in Asic. It's still a mystery to you,
> >
> >I don't believe any languages took anything from Asic, as Asic was never
> >in any running that I know of. Applications are written in whatever
> >language the author desires to write them in. Modern applications are
> >even sometimes written in pure assembler. I know, scary; such an
> >antiquated, limited (ehm, hehehe) language that it is too.
>
> So why aren't any commercial products of note written in Asic? Why
> have all the world's major vendors chosen other languages?
>
> >
> >Sir, really, your the only one here seriously trying to defend the side
> >of ignorance with more ignorance. The more you post, the more you show us
> >all that your a tool of the language, the language isn't the tool, alas,
> >you are.
>
> Says you.
>
> >
> >> If anyone had any doubts about your purpose here I think it should be
> >> clear now.
> >
> >My purpose here? I'd strongly encourage you to read the original post
> >which brought me here in the first place.
> >
> >> opprotunity to prove your skills. You don't even know decent Perl when
> >> you see it, and you're trying to tell us you're a "coder"?
> >
> >I don't know any "coders" who would admit to writing primarily in a
> >scripting language, sir. Your the exception.
>
> It's not my primary language but I know it well and use it often. I
> also use C, and C++ as needed. You will recall I demonstrated how to
> seed the random number generator properly in CPP. Perl is one of the
> best and most flexible languages in the world. Perl's extensibility is
> vast. Millions of people agree with me.
>
> Use C when you want it done fast, use Perl when you want it done
> right.
>
> Use Asic if you don't know anything else.
>
> >
> >Then again, no coding person I know personally or otherwise has ever told
> >me that they could compile a win32 executable and NOT use APIs; and! do
> >this magic with a programming language known as Delphi.
>
> I don't Dustin, the Runtime does it for me. I have shown you how that
> works but I'll be glad to post another example for you if you would
> like a refresher. This is why the rest of the world has moved to RAD
> environments.
>
> >
> >>
> >> I'm beginning to think the only languages you have any understanding
> >> of are
> >
> >Really now? Do you have even the first clue about the software I've
> >written? Any ****ing idea at all? Oh christ, listen; You don't know ****
> >about disassembling anything, do you really think you know anything about
> >what I understand vs what I don't? Give it up. You barely even know what
> >happens when a win32 executable is built in a language you do program in.
>
> I have only seen what you have posted. You can't even write your own
> engine to recurse a folder. The app that you constantly ***** around
> has no automatic update ability, new definitions are released
> manually. What you should have done is pull the updates with a simple
> http request, but I bet you didn't because you can't.
>
> >
> >> basic derivatives. Is there any chance that you're nothing more than a
> >> basic programmer who fell way behind and is now unable to catch up?
> >
> >Yea, sure; that's it. That's why I'm disassembling several win32
> >executables that can do some nasty things and adding signature
> >information to an antimalware tool. You forgot, ****head; In order for
> >BugHunter to detect these things, I have to add the signatures. That's
> >done by analyzing software. And heh, no, idiot, I don't have the source
> >code for these either. I don't need it. Nobody who's serious about low
> >level code would.
>
> You have already admitted that you get your signatures from other
> sources and supplement with your own analysis. I'll be glad to repost
> that admission if you need another refresher. You have no hueristic
> engine, you just check if the file size matches a known size and then
> checksum to verify a match. Not really the work of a master
> programmer, is it?
>
> >
> >Come back at me sir, when you do have something of substance. I'm tired
> >of your stupidity, and your not going to be educating me or anyone else
> >here anytime soon if you don't grow the **** up. Delphi, without apis...
> >Script Kiddy.
>
> I did educate you, and any time you drop my name here or anywhere I
> monitor, expect a response from me if it's convenient.
>
> >
> >> If you can only write code in archaic languages that have tiny (or no)
> >> market share(s),do you really think that entitles you to the
> >> superiority complex you have?
> >
> >No superiority complex here, Sir. It's a fact, I'm a better programmer
> >than you. Atleast in so far as understanding low level code. You don't
> >even know what your compiler is really doing. Your 0wned by your
> >languages and not the way it should be.
>
> I don't mind my languages doing the grunt work for me. My time is more
> important to me and if I ever need to go low level I can or I can get
> someone to do it for me. I have never needed to, and probably never
> will.
>
> From the Asic manual:
>
>
> A S I C (tm) 5.00
> "Its Almost Basic" Copyright (c) 1994
> by 80/20 Software
> All Rights Reserved
>
> I think that says it all.
>
> --
> -linux_lad
> http://www.spoofproof.org/verify.php...75c133b28d326f
> (courtesy crosspost for 4Q)
Reply With Quote