From: Dustin Cook on 15 Jan 2010 19:22
Charlie <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:00:27 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>>From: "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net>
>>Of the 33 files submitted to VT
>>AntiVir - 24
>>AVG - 12
>>Avast - 11
>>Microsoft - 10
>>Symantec - 4
> The BULK of these so-called SUBMISSIONS are half-baked / unfinished
> Virii still in development and not released. Wake up David!!!This site
> is a workbench for VIRUS AUTHORS!
Are you high? coming down from a crack benge? What exactly is your major
"Is there anything in Guul Draz that doesn't suck the life out of you?"
- Tarsa, Sea Gate sell-sword.
From: FromTheRafters on 15 Jan 2010 20:40
"ASCII" <me2(a)privacy.net> wrote in message
> But David posts here frequently,
> even uses mail2news to expose his prurience,
> doesn't that connote authority and knowledge?
> Who do you two menials think you are
> to have the audacity to impugn his opinions?
....waiting for the lightning strike..
The whole 'infects or not' thing is an artificial dichotomy imposed to
make the industry happy. Two whole schools of thought, not just his
opinion. For those wanting worms to be 'not-viruses', they stipulate
that viruses must attach to code and worms need not. Some draw the line
at whether or not user action is required, or whether or not a program
is 'network aware'. I don't hold with any of those artificial lines, but
I try to be aware of them when discussing related topics with those that
From: FromTheRafters on 15 Jan 2010 20:53
"Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>> "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>>>> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
>>>>> None were viruses ...
>>>> Although some of the participating vendor's scanners did report
>>> Which isn't actually; a virus. A virus requires a host, a worm does
>>> not. An
>>> important, distinction often overlooked.
>> In this case I was referring to that aspect because David is one of
>> those that does not believe that. He has stated to me that a worm
>> a virus (which isn't exactly wrong mathematically, and he is not
>> in believing that). It was his statement that "none were viruses"
>> made me pick the nit.
>> I'm with you - a virus always runs as a result of a 'host' program
>> being invoked, and a worm runs (and replicates) without the need for
>> David apparently feels that a worm is a kind of virus that doesn't
>> require an infected host program.
> David isn't alone in his viewpoint. A worm is a close relative of the
> virus, as they both have replication functions which are intentional.
> However, that's about all they have in common. A worm is actually it's
> own program, self contained. When it replicates, it copies itself as
> other filenames, but still remains, a worm.
Some worms don't even hit the filesystem, and use network replication.
The 'self-contained' thing is another artificial line drawn between
virus and worm (another way of saying it isn't infecting to replicate).
A worm can be exploit code and shellcode embedded in data that gains
more content by downloading from a previous victim. Hardly
'self-contained' when it spans systems.
From: Anonymous on 15 Jan 2010 17:20
"Leythos" <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote in message news:MPG.25ba9af5faa4a3c698a0aa(a)us.news.astraweb.com...
> In article <uu9vk5tknetbmte8v9j9c82ih624n0mdtn(a)4ax.com>,
> fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com says...
>> I think my challenge to Dave served this group a great service and
>> bolstered the credibility of my argument. It exposed him as the
>> charlatan and faker I believe he showed himself to be
>HA HA HA HA HA HA HA....
>Your own posted testing methods showed that you have limited experience,
>limited testing, flawed testing methods...... And you have the nerve/gall
> to claim you've exposed someone as a fake/charlatan?
He tries to impress with his fancy white man's words but his own post
news:urivk59s8akoc2r5m29ese4t6ef6jup86a(a)4ax.com exposed him as
sewer scum. In Saudi Arabia his reward for publicly posting such filth
would be 5 years in prison and 1,000 lashes. I hope he visits us soon.
Hai'a will be waiting to greet him at the airport.
From: Charlie on 16 Jan 2010 12:51
>He tries to impress with his fancy white man's words but his own post
>news:urivk59s8akoc2r5m29ese4t6ef6jup86a(a)4ax.com exposed him as
>sewer scum. In Saudi Arabia his reward for publicly posting such filth
>would be 5 years in prison and 1,000 lashes. I hope he visits us soon.
>Hai'a will be waiting to greet him at the airport.
Obviously my 'fancy white man's words' impressed the likes of you.
I don't apologize for my university education.
I wouldn't wait too long for me at the airport since the odds are great
a Saudi-sponsored Al Queda suicide bomber would probably blow the plane
up before arrival. BTW how much aid (if any) is Saudi Arabia sending to
I realize your country imposes religous repression (mind control) and
you are simply an ignorant mouthpiece for that oppressive government.
Isn't living in fear of accidentally speaking your true mind tiresome
and a source of stress?
Secretly you would love to immigrate to the USA....Let me know the
flight number and I'LL meet YOU at the airport.