Fake Antivirus and Spyware Doctor, Symbiotic?
in [Anti-Virus]
|
Prev: What exactly is "The Metasploit Project" ?
Next: Queries about Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition and Client Firewall
From: FromTheRafters on 7 Jan 2010 21:43 "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns9CF8DA8025220HHI2948AJD832(a)69.16.185.247... > "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in > news:hi30f6$bir$1 > @news.eternal-september.org: > >> "The Central Scrutinizer" <gcisko(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:hi16ec$sjd$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >>> Actually it seems more like infinitesimal points of details for >>> experts to >>> pontificate about. >> >> Yes, it does seem that way to those that don't (and perhaps can't) >> understand what the difference is. When the term virus was coined for >> self-replicating code, it caught on and became a buzz word for >> anything >> that can go wrong with a computer. Despite that, the definition still >> stands. No amount of crying will repeal that. >> >>> The potential is you are equally hosed with a virus as you are with >>> malware. >> >> Most experts currently agree that all viruses are indeed malware (and >> they are wrong). The fact is that a virus need not be malicious - and > in >> fact can be a boon to mankind in the future. A virus is a virus >> because >> of what it does, not because of how people feel about the results - >> not >> the same for malware because malware by definition is malicious. >> >> [...] >> >> >> > > And, malware is sometimes much easier to clean up. A fine example > would > be the rogue program known as internetsecurity(antivirus)2010; it's an > annoyance, but not too difficult. A virus on the other hand, can be a > real pisser; it has self replicating code; and it could be inside > hundreds of files on your system by the time you notice something is > amiss. Additionally, most non-viral malware has a need to persist reboot - often by methods easily revealed by autoruns, HJT etc...if not rootkitted. Many viruses won't use any of those methods - they persist by being patient and waiting to be invoked as a matter of course. ....and then there's the polymorphic aspect - you can't just do a hash comparison like you can with some malware. Yes, I know I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know. :o) Just reiterating, here, for the readership.
From: The Central Scrutinizer on 11 Jan 2010 01:54 "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message news:hi4j88$dfu$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > "The Central Scrutinizer" <gcisko(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:hi3rig$crs$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >> "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message >> news:hi30f6$bir$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> Most experts currently agree that all viruses are indeed malware (and >>> they are wrong). The fact is that a virus need not be malicious - and in >>> fact can be a boon to mankind in the future. A virus is a virus because >> >> Please name one example. > > One example of what? The future? I will do that sometime tomorrow. :oD > > The "good" virus? > > None of the proposals have been accepted because it has been proven that > the same results can be achieved by programming that does not require > viral code. Cohen's "compression virus" for instance - infected and > compressed files to save storage space. When the file was invoked, the > virus executed and decompressed the rest of the file. Huh. You did not explain anything in your reply. Interesting..
From: FromTheRafters on 11 Jan 2010 18:41 "The Central Scrutinizer" <gcisko(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:hiehue$6ar$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message > news:hi4j88$dfu$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> "The Central Scrutinizer" <gcisko(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:hi3rig$crs$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >>> "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message >>> news:hi30f6$bir$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>> Most experts currently agree that all viruses are indeed malware >>>> (and they are wrong). The fact is that a virus need not be >>>> malicious - and in fact can be a boon to mankind in the future. A >>>> virus is a virus because >>> >>> Please name one example. >> >> One example of what? The future? I will do that sometime tomorrow. >> :oD >> >> The "good" virus? >> >> None of the proposals have been accepted because it has been proven >> that the same results can be achieved by programming that does not >> require viral code. Cohen's "compression virus" for instance - >> infected and compressed files to save storage space. When the file >> was invoked, the virus executed and decompressed the rest of the >> file. > > Huh. You did not explain anything in your reply. Interesting.. What *example* are you looking for? I can't give you an example of what the future might hold. For instance, I couldn't give you an example of a replicating robot, but I could propose that they exist in the future. As long as the distances are short enough, programming software for new robotic instances could be sent from humans. Autotonomous replicating robots too for away (or under too much radio interference) to receive new software must replicate the software. That ability is what a computer virus is. I propose that the future of mankind might indeed depend upon computer viruses. The whole virus=malware thing is just prejudice, although there are no examples of 'the good virus' to offer that can't be shown to use the viral capability only because there is no other way to accomplish the task. I propose that one might exist in the future where there *is* no non-viral alternative method to accomplish the task.
From: The Central Scrutinizer on 12 Jan 2010 22:48 "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message news:higd0a$7pc$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > What *example* are you looking for? > > I can't give you an example of what the future might hold. Oh swell... You said a virus need not be malicious. I asked you to name one example. Seems pretty straight forward to me. Just name one example of a computer virus that was not malicious. So hows about stopping with all the psycho-babble and simply answer the f-ing question? Sheesh! > For instance, I couldn't give you an example of a replicating robot, but I > could propose that they exist in the future. As long as the distances are > short enough, programming software for new robotic instances could be sent > from humans. Autotonomous replicating robots too for away (or under too > much radio interference) to receive new software must replicate the > software. That ability is what a computer virus is. I propose that the > future of mankind might indeed depend upon computer viruses. > > The whole virus=malware thing is just prejudice, although there are no > examples of 'the good virus' to offer that can't be shown to use the viral > capability only because there is no other way to accomplish the task. I > propose that one might exist in the future where there *is* no non-viral > alternative method to accomplish the task. >
From: FromTheRafters on 13 Jan 2010 17:14
"The Central Scrutinizer" <gcisko(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:hijfqp$avg$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message > news:higd0a$7pc$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> What *example* are you looking for? >> >> I can't give you an example of what the future might hold. > > Oh swell... > > You said a virus need not be malicious. I asked you to name one > example. I guess English isn't your strong suit. The phrase "need not be" is not the same as the phrase "is not". I proposed that the future might give a need to incorporate viral code into robotics. There were two "examples" (one of which was actually in existence, and one only proposed) of "the good virus" - both largely unaccepted as proof of existence because the viral code wasn't "necessary" to accopmplish the "good" task. IIRC Fred Cohen proposed the virus that compressed files for storge on disk. I don't recall the author or the name of the program that provided disk encryption via viral code. > Seems pretty straight forward to me. Just name one example > of a computer virus that was not malicious. The virus "again.com" was written without malicious intent, does that count? > So hows about stopping with all the psycho-babble and simply answer > the f-ing question? I did, but I guess you're just too stupid to get it! > Sheesh! Indeed!! |