From: FromTheRafters on
"JD" <JD(a)example.invalid> wrote in message

> If everybody stopped replying to you, would you continue to just post
> and answer your own messages?


From: ~BD~ on
JD wrote:

> We have a term down here in Texas. It's called "pi$$ing into the wind."
> We try not to do that but sometimes one misjudges the wind direction.

Maybe that's why your still wet behind the ears! ;)
From: Dustin Cook on
~BD~ <BoaterDave(a)> wrote in

> JD wrote:
>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>> "~BD~"<BoaterDave(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:8aydnQR6ar0tr0DWnZ2dnUVZ8oKdnZ2d(a)
>>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>> "~BD~"<BoaterDave(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:156dnS2rcsGUg0HWnZ2dnUVZ8o6dnZ2d(a)
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> *What if* ....... ?
>>>>>>> One or more of those 'trusted' malware cleaning forums (or even
>>>>>>> a trusted software programme) could, surely, download such a
>>>>>>> programme onto a user's machine so that, forever afterwards,
>>>>>>> whatever is done on
>>>>>>> that machine may be monitored by an outside agency.
>>>>> Thank you for responding FTR! :)
>>>>>> That's not very likely,
>>>>> But .... *I* believe that it is *possible*!
>>>>> ********
>>>>> As I've said elsewhere ..........
>>>>> "What a super ruse it would be, eh? - to clear a machine of
>>>>> everyone else's 'nasties' but then, perhaps, leave their own
>>>>> package installed on the user's machine. No one would ever
>>>>> suspect, would they?"
>>>>>> such a trojan would soon be discovered and dealt
>>>>>> with - very bad for the 'trusted' source's reputation.[...]
>>>>> Now this is where we seem to have a *real* difference of opinion,
>>>>> FTR!
>>>>> Just *who* would discover such covert malware. With today's
>>>>> high-speed and powerful machines a *user* is highly *unlikely* to
>>>>> discover that they have become part of a botnet! If their
>>>>> /cleaned/ machine is performing *better* that it had in a long
>>>>> while, why would the *user* suspect anything untoward?
>>>> Bigger picture:
>>>> Remember the quote about how you can fool some of the people some
>>>> of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time?
>>> �You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool
>>> some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the
>>> people all the time.� Abraham Lincoln
>>>> Malware like
>>>> that relies on the first part of that quote. It doesn't care about
>>>> the second part because there is no shortage of fools. Such
>>>> software does eventually get discovered, but usually cannot be
>>>> traced back to a single source - there are many sources and they
>>>> change location often. If someone has a *real firewall* then this
>>>> type of commercial malware's activities can soon be discovered.
>>>> So asking "who would" is the wrong question - the individual is
>>>> insignificant in comparison to the whole. Instead you must ask
>>>> yourself if *anybody* would discover the hidden function, and what
>>>> that would mean to an otherwise legitimate (contactable) business.
>>> OK. Let' use an example.
>>> I do not consider to be a business (do you?)
>>> Let's say someone goes there for the cleaning of their machine and
>>> all seems to go to plan. Is there *any* company/organisation which
>>> makes random checks on such 'help' sites to ensure that nothing
>>> untoward, along the lines which I've described, is happening - to
>>> ensure that they are *not* compromising the machines of naive
>>> 'customers'?
>>>>> My limited understanding of matters is that once a machine is
>>>>> under the control of a botmaster, all personal control is
>>>>> effectively lost.
>>>>> Do you dispute this?
>>>> Yes, but I may be reading it differently than you are. It would
>>>> depend on how much control is still afforded you by the nature of
>>>> the offending program.
>>> Perhaps you are. I meant that an outside agency may do whatever they
>>> wish - whenever they wish - with the owner of the machine being
>>> completely unaware of the 'intruder'. This may only be achieved if
>>> the user can still carry out whatever he/she wishes to do and does
>>> not become suspicious in any way.
>>> HTH
>> boater Dave, You are so full of $hit my monitor stinks when I see
>> your messages. Try a slow boat to anywhere but these newsgroups. OK?
> You might enjoy life more if you stopped complaining about things over
> which you have no control. None whatsoever!

You too might find life more enjoyable if you lost the everyone might be
out to get me mentality. I'm sure it would bring you far less stress to
worry so much about the bad guys.

> No one *makes* you read what I have to say (there again, maybe you
> don't!) and it costs you nothing. Simply ignore me if what I say
> offends you.

Aren't you deliberatly offending to get a reaction?

> Enjoy your day! :)

I had a very enjoyable day, thanks.

"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...hrrngh.. nudge
this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior

From: Dustin Cook on
JD <JD(a)example.invalid> wrote in

> If everybody stopped replying to you, would you continue to just post
> and answer your own messages? Why don't we all see what happens?

Honestly, I think he would continue posting more conspiracy theories here;
even if nobody responded. He might even take the lack of response as
indictive that he is correct in his illusions, resulting in even more 'I've
proven it' posts.

"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...hrrngh.. nudge
this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior

From: ~BD~ on
Dustin Cook wrote:

> And again, such tactics would eventually land on the wrong machine. Say,
> mine for example. My curosity would force me to go digging and
> eventually, I *would* find the modifications.

Now *that* is exactly what I tried to encourage you to do, Dustin!

In particular at and I'm unsure - but Robear Dyer *has* lied.

> Many other experts would as
> well. A blog site would appear, further experts would examine the site
> mentioned and it would just go south for the site/software owner/creator
> from that point on.

I can hope for nothing more than that someone *will* take an interest
and investigate. Most folk are too busy to do as I have done for well
over four years now. I've never professed to know much about computers
but I do have an ability to sense when things do not ring true.

> In a way, checks and balances which is what you seem concerned with do
> take place on a daily basis.

I'm sure you are right but it seems that such checks and balances are
woefully inadequate. The bad guys are winning and cybercrime is still
escalating. You saw for yourself, with the recent Times Square incident,
that the terrorist threat is still with us. I'd bet next weeks pension
that at least a proportion of money stolen on the Internet is directed
to fund such activity. I don't like that.

Just like the Somali pirates, the Internet bad guys *must* be stopped.