Enjoy! I know I did!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/12/linux_zombies_push_malware/

 

Frank <fb@tbb.moz> wrote:

> Enjoy! I know I did!


frank and his psycho schizophrenic self have a serious problem.

 

On 3/6/2010 8:41 AM, Andy wrote:
> Frank<fb@tbb.moz> wrote:
>
>> Enjoy! I know I did!
>
>
> frank and his psycho schizophrenic self have a serious problem.

Whats wrong andy the linutrd, can't handle the truth?

 

Ok, the response from Alias will be something in the form of "LIES" or
"ill-informed or " their IT Dept doesn't know Linux, they are all
windroids" or "BFD", this I gata hear...

WaterBoy
"Frank" <fb@tbb.moz> wrote in message news:4b928135@news.x-privat.org...
> Enjoy! I know I did!
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/12/linux_zombies_push_malware/

 

On 3/6/2010 7:58 PM, WaterBoy wrote:
> Ok, the response from Alias will be something in the form of "LIES" or
> "ill-informed or " their IT Dept doesn't know Linux, they are all
> windroids" or "BFD", this I gata hear...
>
> WaterBoy
> "Frank" <fb@tbb.moz> wrote in message news:4b928135@news.x-privat.org...
>> Enjoy! I know I did!
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/12/linux_zombies_push_malware/
>
Yeah...he is a "one trick pony" and "as predictable as the tides".
Oops!...LOL!

 

WaterBoy wrote:
> Ok, the response from Alias will be something in the form of "LIES" or
> "ill-informed or " their IT Dept doesn't know Linux, they are all
> windroids" or "BFD", this I gata hear...
>
> WaterBoy
> "Frank" <fb@tbb.moz> wrote in message news:4b928135@news.x-privat.org...
>> Enjoy! I know I did!
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/12/linux_zombies_push_malware/
>

I already replied to this link when it was posted before Frank copied it
and posted it again. Please try to keep up.

--
Alias

 

"WaterBoy" <Waterboy@somewhere.com> wrote in
news:iN2dnTJZKszDuQ7WnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@giganews.com:

> Ok, the response from Alias will be something in the form of "LIES" or
> "ill-informed or " their IT Dept doesn't know Linux, they are all
> windroids" or "BFD", this I gata hear...
>
> WaterBoy
> "Frank" <fb@tbb.moz> wrote in message news:4b928135@news.x-privat.org...
>> Enjoy! I know I did!
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/12/linux_zombies_push_malware/

"It's unclear exactly how the servers have become infected. Sinegubko
speculates they belong to careless administrators who allowed their root
passwords to be sniffed."

........which is far from an 'exploit'.

One thing for sure though, the weren't compromised because someone using
the computer visited a malicious website that silently installed s/w on
them.....

......which is the actual problem.

 

"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in message
news:Xns9D344ECF873CEthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131...
> "WaterBoy" <Waterboy@somewhere.com> wrote in
> news:iN2dnTJZKszDuQ7WnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@giganews.com:
>
> "It's unclear exactly how the servers have become infected. Sinegubko
> speculates they belong to careless administrators who allowed their root
> passwords to be sniffed."
>
> .......which is far from an 'exploit'.
>
> One thing for sure though, the weren't compromised because someone using
> the computer visited a malicious website that silently installed s/w on
> them.....
>
> .....which is the actual problem.

Given the ratio of Windows v Linux users, it makes sense that many more
Windows boxes would be infected. And--IMO--the vast majority of those
infections are due to "careless administrators"--end users who really don't
have much of a clue about PC security.

 

On 3/7/2010 4:44 AM, DanS wrote:
> "WaterBoy"<Waterboy@somewhere.com> wrote in
> news:iN2dnTJZKszDuQ7WnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@giganews.com:
>
>> Ok, the response from Alias will be something in the form of "LIES" or
>> "ill-informed or " their IT Dept doesn't know Linux, they are all
>> windroids" or "BFD", this I gata hear...
>>
>> WaterBoy
>> "Frank"<fb@tbb.moz> wrote in message news:4b928135@news.x-privat.org...
>>> Enjoy! I know I did!
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/12/linux_zombies_push_malware/
>
> "It's unclear exactly how the servers have become infected. Sinegubko
> speculates they belong to careless administrators who allowed their root
> passwords to be sniffed."
>
> .......which is far from an 'exploit'.
>
> One thing for sure though, the weren't compromised because someone using
> the computer visited a malicious website that silently installed s/w on
> them.....
>
> .....which is the actual problem.

No, that is simply not true. There is no such thing as "silently
installed s/w" on a fully updated Windows 7 running IE8.
It still requires the recipient to acknowledge/accept or agree to
something.
IOW's, it requires the recipients help to get installed.

 

On 3/7/2010 3:05 AM, Alias wrote:
> WaterBoy wrote:
>> Ok, the response from Alias will be something in the form of "LIES" or
>> "ill-informed or " their IT Dept doesn't know Linux, they are all
>> windroids" or "BFD", this I gata hear...
>>
>> WaterBoy
>> "Frank" <fb@tbb.moz> wrote in message news:4b928135@news.x-privat.org...
>>> Enjoy! I know I did!
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/12/linux_zombies_push_malware/
>>
>
> I already replied to this link when it was posted before Frank copied it
> and posted it again. Please try to keep up.
>
Fuckin LIAR!

 

"Thip" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:7vhndnFiljU1@mid.individual.net...
> Given the ratio of Windows v Linux users, it makes sense that many more
> Windows boxes would be infected. And--IMO--the vast majority of those
> infections are due to "careless administrators"--end users who really
> don't have much of a clue about PC security.
>
>
>

Actually no. There are more Linux Web servers (the subject of this thread)
than Windows ones. And yet there are almost NO Linux viruses/malware in the
wild. The Linux servers compromised were compromised not by any weakness in
Linux itself but because, and ONLY because, the attackers managed to
ascertain the root passwords.
That is a HUGE difference between obtaining the root passwords and being
able to infect a Windows OS without having to ascertain the Admin password
in order to do so.

 

Frank <fb@amk.cmo> wrote in news:4b93f09c$2@news.x-privat.org:

> On 3/7/2010 4:44 AM, DanS wrote:
>> "WaterBoy"<Waterboy@somewhere.com> wrote in
>> news:iN2dnTJZKszDuQ7WnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@giganews.com:
>>
>>> Ok, the response from Alias will be something in the form of "LIES"
>>> or "ill-informed or " their IT Dept doesn't know Linux, they are
>>> all windroids" or "BFD", this I gata hear...
>>>
>>> WaterBoy
>>> "Frank"<fb@tbb.moz> wrote in message
>>> news:4b928135@news.x-privat.org...
>>>> Enjoy! I know I did!
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/12/linux_zombies_push_malware/
>>
>> "It's unclear exactly how the servers have become infected. Sinegubko
>> speculates they belong to careless administrators who allowed their
>> root passwords to be sniffed."
>>
>> .......which is far from an 'exploit'.
>>
>> One thing for sure though, the weren't compromised because someone
>> using the computer visited a malicious website that silently
>> installed s/w on them.....
>>
>> .....which is the actual problem.
>
> No, that is simply not true. There is no such thing as "silently
> installed s/w" on a fully updated Windows 7 running IE8.
> It still requires the recipient to acknowledge/accept or agree to
> something.
> IOW's, it requires the recipients help to get installed.

That's all fine and dandy, but the whole worlds not running Windows 7
w/IE8.

What is the Windows7 share... 10% ? 15 ?

 

"Thip" <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:7vhndnFiljU1@mid.individual.net:

>
>
> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D344ECF873CEthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131...
>> "WaterBoy" <Waterboy@somewhere.com> wrote in
>> news:iN2dnTJZKszDuQ7WnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@giganews.com:
>>
>> "It's unclear exactly how the servers have become infected. Sinegubko
>> speculates they belong to careless administrators who allowed their
>> root passwords to be sniffed."
>>
>> .......which is far from an 'exploit'.
>>
>> One thing for sure though, the weren't compromised because someone
>> using the computer visited a malicious website that silently
>> installed s/w on them.....
>>
>> .....which is the actual problem.
>
> Given the ratio of Windows v Linux users, it makes sense that many
> more Windows boxes would be infected.

Of course, especially since there is virtually zero Linux virus/malware
out there 'in the wild' infecting Linux boxes.

> And--IMO--the vast majority of
> those infections are due to "careless administrators"--end users who
> really don't have much of a clue about PC security.

"Those" careless administrators are not the same as careless
administrators at a server farm.......home users can't be expected to
know anyting, but those administering networks for a living are expected
to know everything, and should...it's there job.

 

On 3/7/2010 1:16 PM, DanS wrote:
> Frank<fb@amk.cmo> wrote in news:4b93f09c$2@news.x-privat.org:
>
>> On 3/7/2010 4:44 AM, DanS wrote:
>>> "WaterBoy"<Waterboy@somewhere.com> wrote in
>>> news:iN2dnTJZKszDuQ7WnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> Ok, the response from Alias will be something in the form of "LIES"
>>>> or "ill-informed or " their IT Dept doesn't know Linux, they are
>>>> all windroids" or "BFD", this I gata hear...
>>>>
>>>> WaterBoy
>>>> "Frank"<fb@tbb.moz> wrote in message
>>>> news:4b928135@news.x-privat.org...
>>>>> Enjoy! I know I did!
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/12/linux_zombies_push_malware/
>>>
>>> "It's unclear exactly how the servers have become infected. Sinegubko
>>> speculates they belong to careless administrators who allowed their
>>> root passwords to be sniffed."
>>>
>>> .......which is far from an 'exploit'.
>>>
>>> One thing for sure though, the weren't compromised because someone
>>> using the computer visited a malicious website that silently
>>> installed s/w on them.....
>>>
>>> .....which is the actual problem.
>>
>> No, that is simply not true. There is no such thing as "silently
>> installed s/w" on a fully updated Windows 7 running IE8.
>> It still requires the recipient to acknowledge/accept or agree to
>> something.
>> IOW's, it requires the recipients help to get installed.
>
> That's all fine and dandy, but the whole worlds not running Windows 7
> w/IE8.

Not yet.
>
> What is the Windows7 share... 10% ? 15 ?
>
....and growing. My point dan-o, is that this is a Windows 7 ng so why
post old news, huh?
>
>

 

DanS wrote:
> Frank <fb@amk.cmo> wrote in news:4b93f09c$2@news.x-privat.org:
>
>> On 3/7/2010 4:44 AM, DanS wrote:
>>> "WaterBoy"<Waterboy@somewhere.com> wrote in
>>> news:iN2dnTJZKszDuQ7WnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> Ok, the response from Alias will be something in the form of "LIES"
>>>> or "ill-informed or " their IT Dept doesn't know Linux, they are
>>>> all windroids" or "BFD", this I gata hear...
>>>>
>>>> WaterBoy
>>>> "Frank"<fb@tbb.moz> wrote in message
>>>> news:4b928135@news.x-privat.org...
>>>>> Enjoy! I know I did!
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/12/linux_zombies_push_malware/
>>> "It's unclear exactly how the servers have become infected. Sinegubko
>>> speculates they belong to careless administrators who allowed their
>>> root passwords to be sniffed."
>>>
>>> .......which is far from an 'exploit'.
>>>
>>> One thing for sure though, the weren't compromised because someone
>>> using the computer visited a malicious website that silently
>>> installed s/w on them.....
>>>
>>> .....which is the actual problem.
>> No, that is simply not true. There is no such thing as "silently
>> installed s/w" on a fully updated Windows 7 running IE8.
>> It still requires the recipient to acknowledge/accept or agree to
>> something.
>> IOW's, it requires the recipients help to get installed.
>
> That's all fine and dandy, but the whole worlds not running Windows 7
> w/IE8.

And the malware writers are just getting started.

--
Alias

 

On 3/7/2010 4:05 PM, Alias wrote:
> DanS wrote:
>> Frank <fb@amk.cmo> wrote in news:4b93f09c$2@news.x-privat.org:
>>
>>> On 3/7/2010 4:44 AM, DanS wrote:
>>>> "WaterBoy"<Waterboy@somewhere.com> wrote in
>>>> news:iN2dnTJZKszDuQ7WnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@giganews.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Ok, the response from Alias will be something in the form of "LIES"
>>>>> or "ill-informed or " their IT Dept doesn't know Linux, they are
>>>>> all windroids" or "BFD", this I gata hear...
>>>>>
>>>>> WaterBoy
>>>>> "Frank"<fb@tbb.moz> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4b928135@news.x-privat.org...
>>>>>> Enjoy! I know I did!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/12/linux_zombies_push_malware/
>>>> "It's unclear exactly how the servers have become infected. Sinegubko
>>>> speculates they belong to careless administrators who allowed their
>>>> root passwords to be sniffed."
>>>>
>>>> .......which is far from an 'exploit'.
>>>>
>>>> One thing for sure though, the weren't compromised because someone
>>>> using the computer visited a malicious website that silently
>>>> installed s/w on them.....
>>>>
>>>> .....which is the actual problem.
>>> No, that is simply not true. There is no such thing as "silently
>>> installed s/w" on a fully updated Windows 7 running IE8.
>>> It still requires the recipient to acknowledge/accept or agree to
>>> something.
>>> IOW's, it requires the recipients help to get installed.
>>
>> That's all fine and dandy, but the whole worlds not running Windows 7
>> w/IE8.
>
> And the malware writers are just getting started.
>
Just WTF are you browsing anyway that you are so GD paranoid of being
infected, huh?
Well...?