flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > i wasted my today with killing ...

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
I have to congratulate Azu again for insightful reply. Not only did he tell me I'm not taking proper measures, he also told me exactly what I should do to protect myself while still downloading apps here and there. You know, usual stuff. I never realized I was such a noob before and used so weak methods that a script kiddie could get into my system!

Also special thanks for reminding me password-protected rar files can be decrypted/cracked in a matter of seconds.

NOTE: this post is full of sarcasm.
NOTE2: I usually don't download apps in the same Firefox session (i.e before Sandbox gets cleaned)
NOTE3: Viruses have no way to get into it without JS & Plugins.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 02 Aug 2009, 21:29
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
windwakr



Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 827
Location: Michigan, USA
windwakr
Wow, this has gone on for 3 and a half pages already! Borsuc, no matter what you say he's just gonna keep saying that whatever you do, a virus WILL infect you, no matter what measures you take. If I were you, I'd have stopped posting at the end of page 1. In real life I can't stand people who act like that. He will NEVER give stop, and this will be become the FASM boards first 1000 page thread if someone doesn't stop first.
Post 02 Aug 2009, 21:55
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
I have to congratulate Azu again for insightful reply. Not only did he tell me I'm not taking proper measures, he also told me exactly what I should do to protect myself while still downloading apps here and there. You know, usual stuff. I never realized I was such a noob before and used so weak methods that a script kiddie could get into my system!

Also special thanks for reminding me password-protected rar files can be decrypted/cracked in a matter of seconds.

NOTE: this post is full of sarcasm.
NOTE2: I usually don't download apps in the same Firefox session (i.e before Sandbox gets cleaned)
NOTE3: Viruses have no way to get into it without JS & Plugins.
Sarcastically pretending you can't read rather than just admitting that the vulnerabilities I've mentioned are feasible isn't very mature of you.


windwakr wrote:
Wow, this has gone on for 3 and a half pages already! Borsuc, no matter what you say he's just gonna keep saying that whatever you do, a virus WILL infect you, no matter what measures you take. If I were you, I'd have stopped posting at the end of page 1. In real life I can't stand people who act like that. He will NEVER give stop, and this will be become the FASM boards first 1000 page thread if someone doesn't stop first.
You can't stand people who don't give up their point just because you've repeated yourself X amount of times without actually trying to make a logical argument? I can't stand people like you, then.

Also, you're lying through your teeth. I didn't "keep saying"
Quote:
whatever you do, a virus WILL infect you, no matter what measures you take
, in fact I never said it at all, nor even implied it. Quite the opposite; I actually mentioned several ways you can avoid being infected.
Post 03 Aug 2009, 06:37
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Enko



Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 678
Location: Mar del Plata
Enko
I have an old Pentium 1 that are clean of virus about 4 years.
It been shutdown al the time Laughing
Post 03 Aug 2009, 14:14
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Azu wrote:
Sarcastically pretending you can't read rather than just admitting that the vulnerabilities I've mentioned are feasible isn't very mature of you.
My point wasn't that they are not there (the vulnerabilities) doh. But it's too paranoid, I mean, except for the ultimate solution: unplug my internet connection and don't accept ANY external devices/mass storage devices. Complete isolation that is.

but wait, maybe my Windows XP CD is also infected, without Microsoft even knowing Surprised

Azu wrote:
in fact I never said it at all, nor even implied it. Quite the opposite; I actually mentioned several ways you can avoid being infected.
Alright, that must have been lost somewhere along this arguing.

Can you repeat it one last time please? What's the solution?
Say I want to download the latest fasm version, but have no idea (according to you) whether my browser is infected, my whole computer, or the fasm "trusted" site (without Tomasz knowing for instance).

Apparently, cleaning the sandbox, launching the browser, and downloading fasm straight has huge vulnerabilities. So what do I do? Unplug the internet connection? Write Fasm myself, cause the internet is too vulnerable to viruses?

On the other side of things, many virus writers have complained writing viruses to bypass AVs is getting harder and harder. Add on top of that multiple AVs, and even the sandbox, NoScript, two firewalls (at device level!) that check for application modifications (they work on app-per-app basis, not port-per-port) possibly with different hash checksums etc...

I mean, really.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 03 Aug 2009, 15:23
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
Sarcastically pretending you can't read rather than just admitting that the vulnerabilities I've mentioned are feasible isn't very mature of you.
My point wasn't that they are not there (the vulnerabilities) doh. But it's too paranoid, I mean, except for the ultimate solution: unplug my internet connection and don't accept ANY external devices/mass storage devices. Complete isolation that is.

but wait, maybe my Windows XP CD is also infected, without Microsoft even knowing Surprised

Azu wrote:
in fact I never said it at all, nor even implied it. Quite the opposite; I actually mentioned several ways you can avoid being infected.
Alright, that must have been lost somewhere along this arguing.

Can you repeat it one last time please? What's the solution?
Say I want to download the latest fasm version, but have no idea (according to you) whether my browser is infected, my whole computer, or the fasm "trusted" site (without Tomasz knowing for instance).

Apparently, cleaning the sandbox, launching the browser, and downloading fasm straight has huge vulnerabilities. So what do I do? Unplug the internet connection? Write Fasm myself, cause the internet is too vulnerable to viruses?

On the other side of things, many virus writers have complained writing viruses to bypass AVs is getting harder and harder. Add on top of that multiple AVs, and even the sandbox, NoScript, two firewalls (at device level!) that check for application modifications (they work on app-per-app basis, not port-per-port) possibly with different hash checksums etc...

I mean, really.
Simple; for downloading use something simple enough that you can be sure it has no holes in it, or get some kind of secure hash (e.g. SHA-512 or WHIRLPOOL-512) from a trusted source (e.g. the author in person). Then the only way you can get screwed over is if the author (person that made the program) and/or the distributor (website or CD mailer or whatever) themselves are corrupt.


Last edited by Azu on 03 Aug 2009, 15:36; edited 1 time in total
Post 03 Aug 2009, 15:31
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
windwakr



Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 827
Location: Michigan, USA
windwakr
You're saying he would physically need to speak with the author to get the hash? Because before you said that any hash on any page would be compromised by a virus. How realistic is that? How can you be sure the authors contacts on the site haven't been modified by the virus?
Post 03 Aug 2009, 15:36
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Whatever security measures you are going to take shouldn't rely on what they are meant to protect against. What's so hard to understand about that? If you can't trust your browser, you can't trust information given to you by your browser. The solution is to use something trustworthy for downloads, or verify with a trustworthy source that the downloads are unaltered..
Post 03 Aug 2009, 15:38
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
windwakr



Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 827
Location: Michigan, USA
windwakr
But as you said, the virus could alter all the pages to say everythings as it should be. "Use something trustworthy"? You said the virus can get through anything, modify any webpage. What would be trustworthy?
Post 03 Aug 2009, 15:42
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
I just said;

Azu wrote:
Simple; for downloading use something simple enough that you can be sure it has no holes in it, or get some kind of secure hash (e.g. SHA-512 or WHIRLPOOL-512) from a trusted source (e.g. the author in person).


I'll try to explain it in even more simple terms, I'm not sure if I'll succeed though, since I explained it very simply already.

For downloading programs;

A)
Obtain or create a browser that is simple enough that you can be sure it has no vulnerabilities. For example, a simple text based browser with source code available and easy to understand.
or
B)
If you want to use a browser that can't be trusted, verify that programs downloaded from it are safe, using something that can be trusted (id est, not the browser!).
Post 03 Aug 2009, 15:52
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Azu wrote:
I just said;

Azu wrote:
Simple; for downloading use something simple enough that you can be sure it has no holes in it, or get some kind of secure hash (e.g. SHA-512 or WHIRLPOOL-512) from a trusted source (e.g. the author in person).


I'll try to explain it in even more simple terms, I'm not sure if I'll succeed though, since I explained it very simply already.

For downloading programs;

A)
Obtain or create a browser that is simple enough that you can be sure it has no vulnerabilities. For example, a simple text based browser with source code available and easy to understand.
or
B)
If you want to use a browser that can't be trusted, verify that programs downloaded from it are safe, using something that can be trusted (id est, not the browser!).
Are you suggesting Firefox is not safe? Razz

But that won't work either. Many viruses spread through portable media, not necessarily the internet. There is no "trusted" source according to you: even trusted sites/trusted distributors can be infected without them knowing right?

I can't use a "simple" browser because I need JavaScript in some instances (not necessarily when I download). However, I have a browser (Firefox) that can disable plugins, and I can keep it that way for the entire session. No need to have two.

I prefer to take my chances on luck than to abandon internet surfing for most sites. But, of course, I'm not surprised I'm not infected or had difficulties (accounts lost or computer acting weird/slow). But then, maybe I was just lucky, or I don't even know I have a virus, right? Wink

Google has been exploited a few times. Does that mean, they should go offline forever, just to avoid viruses? And they are popular...

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 03 Aug 2009, 17:00
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
Are you suggesting Firefox is not safe? Razz
Stating firmly, yes. Gaping holes are routinely found in it, as well as Internet Explorer and many others. I'm not saying it's bad quality code, it's just that there is so much code that there is immense room for error. And those errors routinely manifest as security holes.

Borsuc wrote:
But that won't work either. Many viruses spread through portable media, not necessarily the internet.
Rewritable media (such as USB drives and DVD RWs) should be treated as condoms. If you do not know where it has been, avoid contact with it!


Borsuc wrote:
There is no "trusted" source according to you: even trusted sites/trusted distributors can be infected without them knowing right?
Obviously if the creator of a program has made it malignant on purpose, there is nothing you can do about this on your end. My solution is to prevent problems from your end. If the actual servers that distribute the programs are untrustworthy, there is nothing you can do about this on your end.

Borsuc wrote:
I can't use a "simple" browser because I need JavaScript in some instances (not necessarily when I download).
I just meant for downloading files such as executables and certain multimedia files that can carry viral payloads. Not for surfing. E.G. have a safe, basic browser, in a seperate VM from the one you use for surfing. Use this one to download programs. Then you know that there is no vulnerability from your end.

Borsuc wrote:
However, I have a browser (Firefox) that can disable plugins, and I can keep it that way for the entire session. No need to have two.
NoScript has security problems found it fairly often, not to mention that Gecko itself has vulnerabilities regardless of JS and third party extensions..

Borsuc wrote:
I prefer to take my chances on luck than to abandon internet surfing for most sites.
The problem isn't the surfing. As long as there are no holes in your sandbox/VM/whatever. The problem is if you take executable data out of that box and run it. Then whatever was in it is given a hole to escape through.

Borsuc wrote:
But, of course, I'm not surprised I'm not infected or had difficulties (accounts lost or computer acting weird/slow). But then, maybe I was just lucky, or I don't even know I have a virus, right? Wink
Right

Borsuc wrote:
Google has been exploited a few times. Does that mean, they should go offline forever, just to avoid viruses? And they are popular...
It means that there are problems outside of your control. The ones that are inside of your control, however, can be addressed.
Post 03 Aug 2009, 17:14
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Azu wrote:
Stating firmly, yes. Gaping holes are routinely found in it, as well as Internet Explorer and many others. I'm not saying it's bad quality code, it's just that there is so much code that there is immense room for error. And those errors routinely manifest as security holes.
Isn't that funny? Statistically speaking? I mean, because it's so much code, people can exploit it with high probability. Yes. But that gets fixed if it is widespread, hence, the probability to actually get the virus is kinda small.

But that's not all. Chances decrease a lot more. First, it must not execute the first few times. That may not sound hard to do but it is, if you consider an anti-virus scan. Simple viruses just have no way of getting through that Wink

But that's not all. It has to bypass the firewalls if it wants to do anything useful (or if it's those kiddie viruses, just trash my comp... that's no problem I'll just reinstall, since 95% of my apps are made portable by myself, no need to have the pain to reinstall everything, just Windows).

The two firewalls keep hash checksums on executables and tell me if they are modified (something like "this could have happened if you updated it, if you are not sure, do not allow it..." etc).

What difference does a separate VM make if your download gets corrupted anyway? I mean, you must take it out or then you wouldn't even bother downloading.

Doing ALL of these things and then, getting it on ME (out of billions) is more ridiculous than "perfect code" in a browser.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 03 Aug 2009, 19:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
Isn't that funny?
No, but this is;
Quote:
<Guo_Si> Hey, you know what sucks?
<TheXPhial> vaccuums
<Guo_Si> Hey, you know what sucks in a metaphorical sense?
<TheXPhial> black holes
<Guo_Si> Hey, you know what just isn't cool?
<TheXPhial> lava?


Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
Stating firmly, yes. Gaping holes are routinely found in it, as well as Internet Explorer and many others. I'm not saying it's bad quality code, it's just that there is so much code that there is immense room for error. And those errors routinely manifest as security holes.
Statistically speaking? I mean, because it's so much code, people can exploit it with high probability. Yes. But that gets fixed if it is widespread, hence, the probability to actually get the virus is kinda small.
The probability of getting burglarised is kinda small, too. Does that make it a bad idea to lock your doors when asleep/away from home?

Borsuc wrote:
But that's not all. Chances decrease
Chances are chances.

Borsuc wrote:
a lot more. First, it must not execute the first few times. That may not sound hard to do but it is, if you consider an anti-virus scan. Simple viruses just have no way of getting through that Wink
It's the nasty advanced ones that are the threat, though.

Borsuc wrote:
But that's not all.
Surprised

Borsuc wrote:
It has to bypass the firewalls
Or use the browser it infected, which is already allowed past them..

Borsuc wrote:
The two firewalls keep hash checksums on executables and tell me if they are modified (something like "this could have happened if you updated it, if you are not sure, do not allow it..." etc).
In realtime, or just when the executables are started? And do they use secure hashes (like the higher SHA ones), or insecure ones like CRC and MD5?

Borsuc wrote:
What difference does a separate VM make if your download gets corrupted anyway? I mean, you must take it out or then you wouldn't even bother downloading.
Because if you aren't downloading stuff with a vulnerable browser, then the stuff shouldn't get infected by the browser.

Borsuc wrote:
Doing ALL of these things and then, getting it on ME (out of billions) is more ridiculous than "perfect code" in a browser.
A virus doesn't have to be targeted at YOU in particular for it to infect your computer. Most viruses are aimed at computers in general.
Post 03 Aug 2009, 19:49
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
In regards to the "chances are chances" comment, you do realize that I have also chances to get struck by lightning or killed by some disease right?

Do I worry about them? Do I take measures against them?
Sure. Doesn't mean I'm paranoid about it though. Obviously I take more than enough measures already.

"General" viruses are poor. They are either detected by AVs, or don't work on a protected system because they aren't made to infiltrate the specific firewall driver devices or executables. "general-purpose" is HARD to make to account for ALL the following at the same time:

and MD5 is not unsafe at all, because it's hard to modify an exe to have the same CRC and MD5 (read: both at the same time, before you yell "CRC32 is weak" Razz), bypass AVs, not run the first few times, etc... The COMBINATION of all these factors, that's what makes it hard (if not impossible).

All these while not changing the size or functionality of the executable...
Post 03 Aug 2009, 20:14
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
In regards to the "chances are chances" comment, you do realize that I have also chances to get struck by lightning
Stay indoors and away from windows during lightning storms.

Borsuc wrote:
or killed by some disease right?
So?
If there's a chance of flooding, do you forgo on all other types of insurance?

Borsuc wrote:
Do I worry about them? Do I take measures against them?
Sure. Doesn't mean I'm paranoid about it though. Obviously I take more than enough measures already.
Obviously not.

Borsuc wrote:
"General" viruses are poor. They are either detected by AVs, or don't work on a protected system because they aren't made to infiltrate the specific firewall driver devices or executables.
They wouldn't be very general were that the case.

Borsuc wrote:
"general-purpose" is HARD to make
Lots of bad things are hard to make. That doesn't change the fact that they exist.

Borsuc wrote:
and MD5 is not unsafe at all, because it's hard to modify an exe to have the same CRC and MD5 (read: both at the same time, before you yell "CRC32 is weak" Razz)
Which firewall(s) use both at the same time? And you completely ignored my question of whether they check the hashes constantly or only on startup of the executable. My bet is startup only (meaning useless against memory resident infections), since process memory normally changes during runtime even if there is no infection.


Borsuc wrote:
bypass AVs
Most competent viruses bypass AVs, for a time at least.

Borsuc wrote:
the, not run the first few times
Or not be unlucky


Borsuc wrote:
All these while not changing the size or functionality of the executable...
Only broken viruses change functionality, and unless your getting the size from something trustworthy (read: NOT a program that has already been infected, like your browser in this case), that is completely irrelevant. Actually it is completely irrelevant anyways, since they don't have to change size.
Post 03 Aug 2009, 20:25
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
i sense that, in a few more months,
windows OS will face total collapsed. (any windows OS that are networked to internet will get pawned) and this would provide a new path for internet 2.

(i could feel this).
Post 04 Aug 2009, 14:00
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Azu wrote:
Stay indoors and away from windows during lightning storms.
A woman was struck by lightning inside the house from the ceiling.

Azu wrote:
Obviously not.
"obviously" not?
and you base this on... what exactly?
Oh yeah, I was lucky! That's right. I'd say, for me it's "obvious" that I didn't get a virus yet (read: no account lost, no computer acting weird symptoms, everything else is SPECULATION). I mean why I think it is obvious is because the chances are astronomically low.

However, I realize they are chances, but that doesn't change the fact for me that it's still obvious I didn't get one. Of course I would be surprised if I do get one.

Azu wrote:
They wouldn't be very general were that the case.
I already said that if they were general they would fail. (to infiltrate)

Azu wrote:
Lots of bad things are hard to make. That doesn't change the fact that they exist.
Nukes exist too. The RED button exists as well.
I don't worry about it tho, even if tomorrow I can be toast.
I'm not gonna invest into an atomic bunker or something, thanks. Smile

Azu wrote:
Only broken viruses change functionality, and unless your getting the size from something trustworthy (read: NOT a program that has already been infected, like your browser in this case), that is completely irrelevant. Actually it is completely irrelevant anyways, since they don't have to change size.
Only imaginary viruses keep two hashes intact, don't change the size of the executable, are not detectable in any major AV, don't run the first few times (this is difficult to do if you want to bypass AVs), also send out info to the host only during peak network usage.

You think it's easy. Until you see it signalled in an AV and then say "crap, I have to modify it", only to realize that the MD5 and CRC is impossible to match anymore, for instance.

To bypass ALL of the conditions means I'm being paranoid.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 04 Aug 2009, 19:06
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
sleepsleep wrote:
i sense that, in a few more months,
windows OS will face total collapsed. (any windows OS that are networked to internet will get pawned) and this would provide a new path for internet 2.
hehe Windows have very good security even if IE sucks. Ask f0dder he knows that better than anybody Razz

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 04 Aug 2009, 19:08
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
Stay indoors and away from windows during lightning storms.
A woman was struck by lightning inside the house from the ceiling.
A computer shipped already-dead.
Shit happens, only worry about the stuff you have control over though. Smile

Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
Obviously not.
"obviously" not?
and you base this on... what exactly?
Whatever you based your own randomly off-topic "obviously" remark on..


Borsuc wrote:
Oh yeah, I was lucky! That's right. I'd say, for me it's "obvious" that I didn't get a virus yet (read: no account lost, no computer acting weird symptoms, everything else is SPECULATION). I mean why I think it is obvious is because the chances are astronomically low.
And you base this on... your imagination. As usual. Just ignore all the facts put forth and substitute with your own wishful thinking.

Borsuc wrote:
However, I realize they are chances, but that doesn't change the fact for me that it's still obvious I didn't get one. Of course I would be surprised if I do get one.
It's obvious that you didn't get one that has obvious visual giveaways, which occured while you were at the computer, were noticed by you, and attributed to a virus.. that's some pretty wishful thinking, though. Haven't you heard the saying "better safe than sorry"?

Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
They wouldn't be very general were that the case.
I already said that if they were general they would fail. (to infiltrate)
You said that if they were general they wouldn't have any ways around many AVs.. I'm saying that you're abusing the English language. By definition, if they are general, it won't matter which brand of AV you're using or whatever. They will have some kind of general workaround that bypasses them all.

Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
Lots of bad things are hard to make. That doesn't change the fact that they exist.
Nukes exist too. The RED button exists as well.
I don't worry about it tho, even if tomorrow I can be toast.
I'm not gonna invest into an atomic bunker or something, thanks. Smile
So because there's one thing you can't protect against, you're going to take that retarded example and apply it to completely unrelated things like computer security? That makes no sense whatsoever. Smile

Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
Only broken viruses change functionality, and unless your getting the size from something trustworthy (read: NOT a program that has already been infected, like your browser in this case), that is completely irrelevant. Actually it is completely irrelevant anyways, since they don't have to change size.
Only imaginary viruses keep two hashes intact, don't change the size of the executable, are not detectable in any major AV, don't run the first few times (this is difficult to do if you want to bypass AVs), also send out info to the host only during peak network usage.
You keep completely ignoring my questions. What are these "two hashes" you keep going on about (for all I know they could be Adler-32 and count of set bits Laughing)? And are they even checked during runtime, or just as startup (which, as I just said, would be useless against viruses that reside in memory.. if you're not even going to read what you're replying to, why reply?).
BTW, there's nothing difficult about checking network usage, sorry to burst your bubble. But I guess you'll continue pretending this to be "imaginary" even with all the applications out there that already do this. That's being delusional.

Borsuc wrote:
sleepsleep wrote:
i sense that, in a few more months,
windows OS will face total collapsed. (any windows OS that are networked to internet will get pawned) and this would provide a new path for internet 2.
hehe Windows have very good security even if IE sucks. Ask f0dder he knows that better than anybody Razz
Windows security just keeps getting worse. The newest iteration of Windows (which Microsoft is pushing like hell) doesn't even ship in a state where UAC can do anything to malware, yet it is still annoying Rolling Eyes
Not to mention the countless 0-day vulnerabilities in ALL versions of Windows which continually pop up out of the blue.
Post 05 Aug 2009, 05:25
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.