full-disclosure - Re: Administrivia: Testing Emergency Virus Filter..

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: nick at virus-l.demon.co.uk (Nick FitzGerald)
Subject: Re: Administrivia: Testing Emergency Virus
 Filter..

martin f krafft <madduck@...duck.net> wrote:

> > The problem with virii such as this is not the software but the
> > wetware - the bewildered enduser who fails to use his machine in
> > a secure manner responsible to his community.
> 
> Only partially right, the other part is bugs in software and
> automation techniques that make viruses much easier and effective.

Which also make using the machine much easier and more effective 
(which, in combination with pricing and availability, is why a certain 
OS is many times more popular than all the others put together...

> Moreover, it's operating system design. If I caught a virus on my
> UNIX system, I might be sending it on if the virus is smart enough
> to figure out a way to get into control and to execute sendmail.
> However, it won't be able to infest the system and other local
> users.

BS.

You are clearly a moron.

Ohhhh, maybe that's a bit harsh -- maybe you're right after all.   I 
mean, *nix admins shit doesn't stink and they never, ever, ever once 
ever have run an "unknown" binary (note I did not say where it came 
from or how thay came to run it -- tread very carefully if you try to 
deny this as you ARE a priori WRONG...).

Go stand in line with Mr Clowater for a dose of cluestick 
application...

Regards,

Nick FitzGerald