J
John B. Slocomb
Flightless Bird
On Sun, 16 May 2010 12:19:03 +0200, Alias
<aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:
>On 05/16/2010 03:27 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:06:21 +0200, Alias
>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>
>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 15 May 2010 13:22:02 +0200, Alias
>>>> <aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 05/15/2010 04:49 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:45:42 +0200, Alias
>>>>>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jackie wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 13:13, Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>> If I have to prove that Windows is vulnerable to malware and Linux is
>>>>>>>>> much more secure to you guys, then doing so is a futile endeavor and I'm
>>>>>>>>> not into futile endeavors.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is a very general statement compared to ones you have previously
>>>>>>>> given. For example, you gave a statements such as "If you click on an ad
>>>>>>>> laced with malware, you're giving it permission to run" and "there is
>>>>>>>> malware that has developed the ability to fool ALL anti virus/malware
>>>>>>>> apps and UAC". If you didn't see my response to this, please do that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, to answer your general statement...
>>>>>>>> For malicious apps to cause any damage to the system, it must be
>>>>>>>> elevated. I have already responded about the link you gave about
>>>>>>>> bypassing AV software
>>>>>>>> (http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/New-attack-bypasses-anti-virus-software-997621.html).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In pre-release versions of Windows 7, it was possible for a malicious
>>>>>>>> application to take advantage of the automatic elevation option in
>>>>>>>> Windows 7. I do not know if this was fixed in the final version.
>>>>>>>> http://www.withinwindows.com/2009/0...n-mistake-lets-malware-elevate-freely-easily/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This feature is not present in Ubuntu, and you *can* turn it off in
>>>>>>>> Windows 7. That means it can no longer be taken advantage of.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, a malicious app could mess up your personal files that you
>>>>>>>> always have full access to, but that applies for Linux as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ubuntu has AppArmor installed by default. This is a an access control
>>>>>>>> system developed by Novell.
>>>>>>>> You can read more about it here:
>>>>>>>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppArmor
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, Windows does not have that installed by default, but you
>>>>>>>> can get similar solutions. I said earlier that I used Outpost Firewall
>>>>>>>> Pro 2009 that has a "Host protection" feature that provides a pretty
>>>>>>>> good amount of access control (like I mentioned in an earlier post). I
>>>>>>>> also use Sandboxie to run certain applications with limited resources.
>>>>>>>> http://www.sandboxie.com/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Such solutions giving such great amount of control are not already
>>>>>>>> pre-installed and/or very well integrated with Windows.
>>>>>>>> Considering that a similar solution is pre-installed in Ubuntu and does
>>>>>>>> not cost anything, I would say that it is indeed unfortunate for Windows.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most people who use Windows don't update hardly anything. Techies can
>>>>>>> secure a Windows install but, like you said, with Ubuntu, it's installed
>>>>>>> securely by default.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alias, Alias, you are letting your ignorance show... yet again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Certainly you must know that configuring SELinux (you do know what
>>>>>> SELinux is?) is one of the most common hacks in Linux. "If you have
>>>>>> I/O problems just re-configure it to "disabled" and you're right,
>>>>>> mate."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, the Newbees have problems and have to ask for advise, so it
>>>>>> is pretty obvious to anyone who does a bit of reading that many Linux
>>>>>> systems are wide open.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition, the possibility of acquiring mal-ware depends greatly on
>>>>>> how one uses the computer. I'm sure that you have discovered that
>>>>>> those who spend their time downloading warz and porn are very
>>>>>> susceptible to the problem while I can assure you that using the
>>>>>> computer in a more mature manner results in little or no mal-ware
>>>>>> being received.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John B. Slocomb
>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess you've never heard of drive by malware and you are assuming that
>>>>> all Linux users are ignorant and all Windows users know what they're
>>>>> doing. You're wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I have told you, you really, really, need a course in English
>>>> comprehensive. I never said or implied that all Linux users are
>>>> ignorant or that windows users know what they are doing.
>>>
>>> No, you implied it.
>>>
>>>> although it
>>>> is quite plain to anyone that can read that the Linux Newbees are the
>>>> prime users of Ubuntu.
>>>
>>> And Windows.
>>>
>>>> Or, at least the problems that they seem to
>>>> post, looking for help, are generally not the sort that system
>>>> managers usually need help with.
>>>
>>> People without problems, even newbies, don't post on the forums much so
>>> what you're seeing is not a complete picture even though you represent
>>> it as such.
>>
>>
>> Alias, how stupid are you?
>>
>> You state "People without problems, even newbies, don't post on the
>> forums much...".
>>
>> Tell us, of all the vast multitude of posts you have made in this
>> group how many were concerned with a problem that you are having?
>>
>> "Hoisted on his own petard" is a term commonly applied to people like
>> you. "Liar" is another.
>>
>> John B. Slocomb
>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>
>You really are desperate to find *something* you can use to discredit me
>and make yourself look wonderful. You really need to do something about
>that. I help people under a different nym, a nym you'll never guess or
>know so STFU. Now, for your infantile benefit, I will rephrase what I
>said to meet your idiotic standards:
>
>"MOST people who don't have problems with their OS do not post on
>forums". Happy?
As I have said, many times, you certainly do lack in English
comprehension.
You say that I am discrediting you but I have simply repeated you own
words and pointed out that you are wrong, and I might point out that
you have never rebutted these statements. Or, as you have above, you
rebut them by rephrasing my statements as though you just discovered
the wheel.
I stated, " Or, at least the problems that they seem to post, looking
for help, are generally not the sort that system
managers usually need help with."
You rebutted this by saying " People without problems, even newbies,
don't post on the forums much so what you're seeing is not a complete
picture even though you represent it as such."
"MOST people who don't have problems with their OS do not post on
forums". Happy?
In other words, you are simply enforcing my statement that "At least
the problems that they seem to post..."
Alias, no one needs to discredit you. You do such a complete job of it
all by your self.
John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
<aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:
>On 05/16/2010 03:27 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:06:21 +0200, Alias
>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>
>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 15 May 2010 13:22:02 +0200, Alias
>>>> <aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 05/15/2010 04:49 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:45:42 +0200, Alias
>>>>>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jackie wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 13:13, Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>> If I have to prove that Windows is vulnerable to malware and Linux is
>>>>>>>>> much more secure to you guys, then doing so is a futile endeavor and I'm
>>>>>>>>> not into futile endeavors.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is a very general statement compared to ones you have previously
>>>>>>>> given. For example, you gave a statements such as "If you click on an ad
>>>>>>>> laced with malware, you're giving it permission to run" and "there is
>>>>>>>> malware that has developed the ability to fool ALL anti virus/malware
>>>>>>>> apps and UAC". If you didn't see my response to this, please do that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, to answer your general statement...
>>>>>>>> For malicious apps to cause any damage to the system, it must be
>>>>>>>> elevated. I have already responded about the link you gave about
>>>>>>>> bypassing AV software
>>>>>>>> (http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/New-attack-bypasses-anti-virus-software-997621.html).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In pre-release versions of Windows 7, it was possible for a malicious
>>>>>>>> application to take advantage of the automatic elevation option in
>>>>>>>> Windows 7. I do not know if this was fixed in the final version.
>>>>>>>> http://www.withinwindows.com/2009/0...n-mistake-lets-malware-elevate-freely-easily/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This feature is not present in Ubuntu, and you *can* turn it off in
>>>>>>>> Windows 7. That means it can no longer be taken advantage of.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, a malicious app could mess up your personal files that you
>>>>>>>> always have full access to, but that applies for Linux as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ubuntu has AppArmor installed by default. This is a an access control
>>>>>>>> system developed by Novell.
>>>>>>>> You can read more about it here:
>>>>>>>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppArmor
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, Windows does not have that installed by default, but you
>>>>>>>> can get similar solutions. I said earlier that I used Outpost Firewall
>>>>>>>> Pro 2009 that has a "Host protection" feature that provides a pretty
>>>>>>>> good amount of access control (like I mentioned in an earlier post). I
>>>>>>>> also use Sandboxie to run certain applications with limited resources.
>>>>>>>> http://www.sandboxie.com/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Such solutions giving such great amount of control are not already
>>>>>>>> pre-installed and/or very well integrated with Windows.
>>>>>>>> Considering that a similar solution is pre-installed in Ubuntu and does
>>>>>>>> not cost anything, I would say that it is indeed unfortunate for Windows.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most people who use Windows don't update hardly anything. Techies can
>>>>>>> secure a Windows install but, like you said, with Ubuntu, it's installed
>>>>>>> securely by default.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alias, Alias, you are letting your ignorance show... yet again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Certainly you must know that configuring SELinux (you do know what
>>>>>> SELinux is?) is one of the most common hacks in Linux. "If you have
>>>>>> I/O problems just re-configure it to "disabled" and you're right,
>>>>>> mate."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, the Newbees have problems and have to ask for advise, so it
>>>>>> is pretty obvious to anyone who does a bit of reading that many Linux
>>>>>> systems are wide open.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition, the possibility of acquiring mal-ware depends greatly on
>>>>>> how one uses the computer. I'm sure that you have discovered that
>>>>>> those who spend their time downloading warz and porn are very
>>>>>> susceptible to the problem while I can assure you that using the
>>>>>> computer in a more mature manner results in little or no mal-ware
>>>>>> being received.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John B. Slocomb
>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess you've never heard of drive by malware and you are assuming that
>>>>> all Linux users are ignorant and all Windows users know what they're
>>>>> doing. You're wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I have told you, you really, really, need a course in English
>>>> comprehensive. I never said or implied that all Linux users are
>>>> ignorant or that windows users know what they are doing.
>>>
>>> No, you implied it.
>>>
>>>> although it
>>>> is quite plain to anyone that can read that the Linux Newbees are the
>>>> prime users of Ubuntu.
>>>
>>> And Windows.
>>>
>>>> Or, at least the problems that they seem to
>>>> post, looking for help, are generally not the sort that system
>>>> managers usually need help with.
>>>
>>> People without problems, even newbies, don't post on the forums much so
>>> what you're seeing is not a complete picture even though you represent
>>> it as such.
>>
>>
>> Alias, how stupid are you?
>>
>> You state "People without problems, even newbies, don't post on the
>> forums much...".
>>
>> Tell us, of all the vast multitude of posts you have made in this
>> group how many were concerned with a problem that you are having?
>>
>> "Hoisted on his own petard" is a term commonly applied to people like
>> you. "Liar" is another.
>>
>> John B. Slocomb
>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>
>You really are desperate to find *something* you can use to discredit me
>and make yourself look wonderful. You really need to do something about
>that. I help people under a different nym, a nym you'll never guess or
>know so STFU. Now, for your infantile benefit, I will rephrase what I
>said to meet your idiotic standards:
>
>"MOST people who don't have problems with their OS do not post on
>forums". Happy?
As I have said, many times, you certainly do lack in English
comprehension.
You say that I am discrediting you but I have simply repeated you own
words and pointed out that you are wrong, and I might point out that
you have never rebutted these statements. Or, as you have above, you
rebut them by rephrasing my statements as though you just discovered
the wheel.
I stated, " Or, at least the problems that they seem to post, looking
for help, are generally not the sort that system
managers usually need help with."
You rebutted this by saying " People without problems, even newbies,
don't post on the forums much so what you're seeing is not a complete
picture even though you represent it as such."
"MOST people who don't have problems with their OS do not post on
forums". Happy?
In other words, you are simply enforcing my statement that "At least
the problems that they seem to post..."
Alias, no one needs to discredit you. You do such a complete job of it
all by your self.
John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
3:41 +0700, John B. Slocomb