[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a5e4c83050810161227417e2e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu Aug 11 00:12:15 2005
From: forensis.technica at gmail.com (Technica Forensis)
Subject: Re: Help put a stop to incompetent computer
forensics
> Interesting. What dictionary are you reading this definition from?
Industry standard
> Whether or not the malware does other things as well, everyone I know
> considers a Trojan to be a type of malware that allows an intruder to
> gain entry to a system through the front door once the malware has
> gained entry through some other means such as tricking the user into
> installing it, forcing itself to install a la spyware, or exploiting one
> of the many vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer that enable Web sites
> to plant and execute arbitrary code.
>
> If your proposed definition is the correct one, I'm willing to alter my
> own understanding of this term. But you're going to have to offer some
> proof that other people agree with you.
I took a poll around my office, and we all agree you're wrong on two
counts: 1. your definition of Trojan Horse and 2. your desire to
personally attack people when their views differ from your own.
>
> Somehow I suspect that Homer would disagree with you, and he is the
> proper definitive authority on this subject. See the story of the fall
> of Troy through the use of a Trojan Horse that enabled the whole Greek
> army to gain entry through the front gates because of the actions of the
> hidden package within the horse.
Did the horse the Greeks built create another gate that they could use
that wasn't properly secured by the Trojans? Or, open the front door
remotely? Your definition is the one that doesn't hold up to Homer's.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists