• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

WIN 7

  • Thread starter no_one@no_where.invalid
  • Start date
N

noone

Flightless Bird
Alias <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> écrivait news:hsgk35$vib$3
@news.eternal-september.org:

> Man-wai Chang to The Door (33600bps) wrote:
>> On 5/13/2010 09:16, no_one@no_where.invalid wrote:
>>> Well after working with Vista II, otherwise known as Windows 7, for
>>> three months I can see that Microsoft is still incapable of producing
>>> a quality OS. So I need to look at some other system to switch to,
>>> likely one of the Linux distros.

>>
>> Linux is weaker than Window$ in some areas! :)
>>

>
> Yeah, it's not nearly as good as Windows is in running viruses, root
> kits, trojans and other malware.
>


And running softwares developped for Windows.
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
On 05/13/2010 01:04 PM, noone wrote:
> Alias<aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> écrivait news:hsgk35$vib$3
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Man-wai Chang to The Door (33600bps) wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2010 09:16, no_one@no_where.invalid wrote:
>>>> Well after working with Vista II, otherwise known as Windows 7, for
>>>> three months I can see that Microsoft is still incapable of producing
>>>> a quality OS. So I need to look at some other system to switch to,
>>>> likely one of the Linux distros.
>>>
>>> Linux is weaker than Window$ in some areas! :)
>>>

>>
>> Yeah, it's not nearly as good as Windows is in running viruses, root
>> kits, trojans and other malware.
>>

>
> And running softwares developped [sic] for Windows.
>


Yeah, like malware.

--

Alias
 
J

Jackie

Flightless Bird
On 5/13/2010 12:56, Alias wrote:
> Because of Linux' architecture and Linux doesn't do .exe files.

This is a matter of course though. Of course, I meant binaries built for
Linux and not running binaries made for Windows.

> This is a myth that is a part of the MS FUD against Linux

I can partially agree with this, actually. After I had already posted
it, I realized that I should have worded myself differently, because I
don't mean it exactly the way I said it. Just because is widely used and
because it's the only one most of us know about, it doesn't really have
to mean anything (other than good marketing strategies compared to
Linux). I did not mean that it is *easier* to exploit it either *because
of that* (but I assume you know already but just wanted to troll). What
I meant was it is *more likely to be targeted* because of it's mass of
users compared to other systems. Windows 7 is indeed more secure than
Windows XP (x86) at least. Drivers must be signed (but I think I have
seen some tool for signing them yourself for testing and such). It is
possible to disable the driver integrity check but needs elevation in
order to do that. In order for programs to load drivers, it also need to
be elevated. System services cannot be installed either without
elevation. But I can confirm that it is easy to add an entry to the
Windows task scheduler and make the process run with full system access
without the UAC popping up, if I don't recall incorrectly.

I do not like to say that one is best and anything else is crap.
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Jackie wrote:
> On 5/13/2010 12:56, Alias wrote:
> > Because of Linux' architecture and Linux doesn't do .exe files.

> This is a matter of course though. Of course, I meant binaries built for
> Linux and not running binaries made for Windows.
>
>> This is a myth that is a part of the MS FUD against Linux

> I can partially agree with this, actually. After I had already posted
> it, I realized that I should have worded myself differently, because I
> don't mean it exactly the way I said it. Just because is widely used and
> because it's the only one most of us know about, it doesn't really have
> to mean anything (other than good marketing strategies compared to
> Linux). I did not mean that it is *easier* to exploit it either *because
> of that* (but I assume you know already but just wanted to troll). What
> I meant was it is *more likely to be targeted* because of it's mass of
> users compared to other systems. Windows 7 is indeed more secure than
> Windows XP (x86) at least. Drivers must be signed (but I think I have
> seen some tool for signing them yourself for testing and such). It is
> possible to disable the driver integrity check but needs elevation in
> order to do that. In order for programs to load drivers, it also need to
> be elevated. System services cannot be installed either without
> elevation. But I can confirm that it is easy to add an entry to the
> Windows task scheduler and make the process run with full system access
> without the UAC popping up, if I don't recall incorrectly.
>
> I do not like to say that one is best and anything else is crap.


Nor do I. I use both Windows and Linux.

--
Alias
 
J

Jackie

Flightless Bird
On 5/13/2010 14:48, Alias wrote:
> Nor do I. I use both Windows and Linux.

Do you have anything to say about the other things I said? You quoted
everything in my post.
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Jackie wrote:
> On 5/13/2010 14:48, Alias wrote:
>> Nor do I. I use both Windows and Linux.

> Do you have anything to say about the other things I said? You quoted
> everything in my post.


I suspect that Windows is targeted because of various reasons. Windows
is easier to exploit and Windows users are usually less tech savvy than
Linux users. All they have to do is click on the wrong advertisement in
Facebook and they're hosed. The same wrong ad wouldn't affect Linux.

--
Alias
 
J

Jackie

Flightless Bird
On 5/13/2010 15:30, Alias wrote:
> I suspect that Windows is targeted because of various reasons. Windows
> is easier to exploit and Windows users are usually less tech savvy than
> Linux users.


Certain features (not bugs) in Windows do allow an easier way to do
things with other running processes (resulting in easier way to exploit
vulnerabilities within them as well), while this is either disabled,
only partially supported, or not supported at all in Linux. This is
often because these programs are not coded well enough to protect
themselves. However, this requires the calling process to have the same
or higher access level as the target process.

In the case mentioned here, your statement about less tech savvy people
is very true, since they are more likely to click "Yes" without reading
or understanding the question and potential consequences, and simply
allow the program permission to do such a thing. This is more annoying
under Linux since you need to re-type your password every time (which
would be a good thing for these people, actually).

There should have been an option under Windows to use both: The UAC
prompt with simply "Yes" and "No", or prompt for the password again. The
first one for users like you and I, and the other for them (they are
less likely to bother exploring, or they will wonder why they need to do
this).

> All they have to do is click on the wrong advertisement in
> Facebook and they're hosed. The same wrong ad wouldn't affect Linux.


Now, I do not believe this is a problem with Windows itself but the
browser or plugins the user has installed in the browser. Internet
Explorer, for example, has a support for ActiveX controls and allows
scripts to communicate with them, which I would consider very dangerous.
There was also this issue earlier when people pressed F1 on the "right"
site (you can search for it). Such things should never have been
implemented into IE in the first place, and would never have been
exploitable.
 
D

DanS

Flightless Bird
"Lu Powell" <lupowell@comcast.net> wrote in
news:TeHGn.6329$HG1.647@newsfe21.iad:

>
> "Heywood Jablowme" <heywood@jablowme.gov> wrote in message
> news:4beb0c74@news.x-privat.org...
>>
>>
>> <no_one@no_where.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:hdkmu59pdkha3inpite9bgcsenrjtspvsu@4ax.com...
>>> Well after working with Vista II, otherwise known as
>>> Windows 7, for three months I can see that Microsoft is
>>> still incapable of producing a quality OS. So I need to
>>> look at some other system to switch to, likely one of the
>>> Linux distros.
>>>
>>> Bill - MN
>>> --

>>
>> So you can't figure out Windows 7? Windows 7 is much
>> better than Vista and is very stable. You are probably
>> incompetent and therefore you should migrate to Ubuntu.
>> Get with our resident Ubuntu idiot, Alias and he will help
>> you out.
>>
>> Don't let the screen door hit your ass on the way out.
>> LOL!
>>
>>
>>

>
> The original poster is Alias. Clever, eh?


How do you wrongly come to that conclusion ?
 
H

Heywood Jablowme

Flightless Bird
"Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote in message
news:hsgk1h$vib$2@news.eternal-september.org...

>
> Who cares?
>
> --
> Alias


Funny. That is what we think about YOUR posts! LOL!
 
H

Heywood Jablowme

Flightless Bird
"c_atiel" <fac_187@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hsfpnq$mgu$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> You are so f****ng wrong.
> Windiws 7 is Vista SP3, not Vista II.
> How could anyone be so dum?


You must be extremely stupid. The word is DUMB, not DUM you MORON. Windows
7 is Windows 7 and not Vista SP3. Now shove your head back up your ass
where it belongs.
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
DanS wrote:
> "Lu Powell"<lupowell@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:TeHGn.6329$HG1.647@newsfe21.iad:
>
>>
>> "Heywood Jablowme"<heywood@jablowme.gov> wrote in message
>> news:4beb0c74@news.x-privat.org...
>>>
>>>
>>> <no_one@no_where.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:hdkmu59pdkha3inpite9bgcsenrjtspvsu@4ax.com...
>>>> Well after working with Vista II, otherwise known as
>>>> Windows 7, for three months I can see that Microsoft is
>>>> still incapable of producing a quality OS. So I need to
>>>> look at some other system to switch to, likely one of the
>>>> Linux distros.
>>>>
>>>> Bill - MN
>>>> --
>>>
>>> So you can't figure out Windows 7? Windows 7 is much
>>> better than Vista and is very stable. You are probably
>>> incompetent and therefore you should migrate to Ubuntu.
>>> Get with our resident Ubuntu idiot, Alias and he will help
>>> you out.
>>>
>>> Don't let the screen door hit your ass on the way out.
>>> LOL!
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>> The original poster is Alias. Clever, eh?

>
> How do you wrongly come to that conclusion ?


Yeah, this should be good.

--
Alias
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Heywood Jablowme wrote:
>
>
> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote in message
> news:hsgk1h$vib$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>>
>> Who cares?
>>
>> --
>> Alias

>
> Funny. That is what we think about YOUR posts! LOL!


No more for you, Nymshifter. You can join Frank. You're boring and very
tiresome.

--
Alias
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Jackie wrote:
> On 5/13/2010 15:30, Alias wrote:
>> I suspect that Windows is targeted because of various reasons. Windows
>> is easier to exploit and Windows users are usually less tech savvy than
>> Linux users.

>
> Certain features (not bugs) in Windows do allow an easier way to do
> things with other running processes (resulting in easier way to exploit
> vulnerabilities within them as well), while this is either disabled,
> only partially supported, or not supported at all in Linux. This is
> often because these programs are not coded well enough to protect
> themselves. However, this requires the calling process to have the same
> or higher access level as the target process.
>
> In the case mentioned here, your statement about less tech savvy people
> is very true, since they are more likely to click "Yes" without reading
> or understanding the question and potential consequences, and simply
> allow the program permission to do such a thing. This is more annoying
> under Linux since you need to re-type your password every time (which
> would be a good thing for these people, actually).
>
> There should have been an option under Windows to use both: The UAC
> prompt with simply "Yes" and "No", or prompt for the password again. The
> first one for users like you and I, and the other for them (they are
> less likely to bother exploring, or they will wonder why they need to do
> this).


UAC is a lame imitation of what Linux does as aereo is a lame imitation
of Compiz. Now MS is trying to copy Google docs. They never come up with
anything original.
>
> > All they have to do is click on the wrong advertisement in
> > Facebook and they're hosed. The same wrong ad wouldn't affect Linux.

>
> Now, I do not believe this is a problem with Windows itself but the
> browser or plugins the user has installed in the browser. Internet
> Explorer, for example, has a support for ActiveX controls and allows
> scripts to communicate with them, which I would consider very dangerous.
> There was also this issue earlier when people pressed F1 on the "right"
> site (you can search for it). Such things should never have been
> implemented into IE in the first place, and would never have been
> exploitable.


It doesn't matter what browser you use. If you click on an ad laced with
malware, you're giving it permission to run. Now there is malware that
has developed the ability to fool ALL anti virus/malware apps and UAC.
Of course, you'll need Windows to benefit from this.

--
Alias
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
alias takes it up his ass!!!

On 5/13/2010 8:39 AM, Alias wrote:
> Heywood Jablowme wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote in message
>> news:hsgk1h$vib$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>>
>>> Who cares?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alias

>>
>> Funny. That is what we think about YOUR posts! LOL!

>
> No more for you, Nymshifter. You can join Frank. You're boring and very
> tiresome.
>

I see you're still foaming at the mouth over the overwhelming success of
Windows 7.
As an aside, I just love watching you take it up your stupid, arrogant,
lying, linturd pimping ass. You are the designated whipping boy of this ng.
Oh, and its obvious you love it!...LOL!
 
J

Jackie

Flightless Bird
On 5/13/2010 17:46, Alias wrote:
> UAC is a lame imitation of what Linux does as aereo is a lame imitation
> of Compiz. Now MS is trying to copy Google docs. They never come up with
> anything original.


So what if Linux has something similar implemented already? Are you
saying that MS should make something completely different that is likely
to be worse and harder to use? What is stupid is not doing something
*just because someone else did it already*.

> It doesn't matter what browser you use. If you click on an ad laced with
> malware, you're giving it permission to run. Now there is malware that
> has developed the ability to fool ALL anti virus/malware apps and UAC.
> Of course, you'll need Windows to benefit from this.


It would be nice if you could elaborate more with technical details.

It *does* matter, however, I believe defects in plugins such as Flash
and Silverlight are more responsible for a lot caused by these malicious
ads. These plugins have direct access to the system. If
Flash/Silverlight apps (ads) are able to cause damage, it's a defect in
the Flash/Silverlight plugin. If a regular script is able to cause
damage without using any plugins, it is a defect in the browser. None of
these are specific to Windows, but Windows *does* provide these features
I mentioned earlier (I did not name them), so they are of course also
available to the Flash and Silverlight plugins.

The operating system (any OS) can't automatically know what the
applications will do and can't decide to turn off features for it on its
own. It is unfortunate that the user has little control over what
applications are allowed to do and not do by default in Windows.

I use Outpost Firewall Pro 2009 (excellent firewall software, by the
way) that has an additional feature called "Host protection". This
feature provides a great amount of options to restrict applications from
lower-level features such as process memory injection, window
subclassing, process termination, driver loading, direct disk access,
low-level network access, + more. It is very unfortunate that we need a
separate application for this.
 
D

DanS

Flightless Bird
>>>> So you can't figure out Windows 7? Windows 7 is much
>>>> better than Vista and is very stable. You are probably
>>>> incompetent and therefore you should migrate to Ubuntu.
>>>> Get with our resident Ubuntu idiot, Alias and he will help
>>>> you out.
>>>>
>>>> Don't let the screen door hit your ass on the way out.
>>>> LOL!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The original poster is Alias. Clever, eh?

>>
>> How do you wrongly come to that conclusion ?

>
> Yeah, this should be good.


There will be no answer.
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Jackie wrote:
> On 5/13/2010 17:46, Alias wrote:
>> UAC is a lame imitation of what Linux does as aereo is a lame imitation
>> of Compiz. Now MS is trying to copy Google docs. They never come up with
>> anything original.

>
> So what if Linux has something similar implemented already? Are you
> saying that MS should make something completely different that is likely
> to be worse and harder to use?


It is different and much easier to fuck up. Like I wrote, a lame
*imitation*.


> What is stupid is not doing something
> *just because someone else did it already*.


Never said it wasn't.

>
>> It doesn't matter what browser you use. If you click on an ad laced with
>> malware, you're giving it permission to run. Now there is malware that
>> has developed the ability to fool ALL anti virus/malware apps and UAC.
>> Of course, you'll need Windows to benefit from this.

>
> It would be nice if you could elaborate more with technical details.


http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/New-attack-bypasses-anti-virus-software-997621.html

>
> It *does* matter, however, I believe defects in plugins such as Flash
> and Silverlight are more responsible for a lot caused by these malicious
> ads. These plugins have direct access to the system. If
> Flash/Silverlight apps (ads) are able to cause damage, it's a defect in
> the Flash/Silverlight plugin. If a regular script is able to cause
> damage without using any plugins, it is a defect in the browser. None of
> these are specific to Windows, but Windows *does* provide these features
> I mentioned earlier (I did not name them), so they are of course also
> available to the Flash and Silverlight plugins.
>
> The operating system (any OS) can't automatically know what the
> applications will do and can't decide to turn off features for it on its
> own. It is unfortunate that the user has little control over what
> applications are allowed to do and not do by default in Windows.
>
> I use Outpost Firewall Pro 2009 (excellent firewall software, by the
> way) that has an additional feature called "Host protection". This
> feature provides a great amount of options to restrict applications from
> lower-level features such as process memory injection, window
> subclassing, process termination, driver loading, direct disk access,
> low-level network access, + more. It is very unfortunate that we need a
> separate application for this.


You need a whole helluva lot more than that. Do you even have a NAT
firewall in your router?

--
Alias
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
On 5/13/2010 9:46 AM, Alias wrote:
> Jackie wrote:
>> On 5/13/2010 17:46, Alias wrote:
>>> UAC is a lame imitation of what Linux does as aereo is a lame imitation
>>> of Compiz. Now MS is trying to copy Google docs. They never come up with
>>> anything original.

>>
>> So what if Linux has something similar implemented already? Are you
>> saying that MS should make something completely different that is likely
>> to be worse and harder to use?

>
> It is different and much easier to fuck up.


Not with Vista/7.

Like I wrote, a lame
> *imitation*.
>

You are a known LIAR, LIAR!
>
>> What is stupid is not doing something
>> *just because someone else did it already*.

>
> Never said it wasn't.


But you never said it was.
>
>>
>>> It doesn't matter what browser you use. If you click on an ad laced with
>>> malware, you're giving it permission to run. Now there is malware that
>>> has developed the ability to fool ALL anti virus/malware apps and UAC.
>>> Of course, you'll need Windows to benefit from this.

>>
>> It would be nice if you could elaborate more with technical details.

>
> http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/New-attack-bypasses-anti-virus-software-997621.html


Hey sheep-fucker...did you even bother reading that article? I guess not
because if you had you proly wont not have posted it.

>
>
>>
>> It *does* matter, however, I believe defects in plugins such as Flash
>> and Silverlight are more responsible for a lot caused by these malicious
>> ads. These plugins have direct access to the system. If
>> Flash/Silverlight apps (ads) are able to cause damage, it's a defect in
>> the Flash/Silverlight plugin. If a regular script is able to cause
>> damage without using any plugins, it is a defect in the browser. None of
>> these are specific to Windows, but Windows *does* provide these features
>> I mentioned earlier (I did not name them), so they are of course also
>> available to the Flash and Silverlight plugins.
>>
>> The operating system (any OS) can't automatically know what the
>> applications will do and can't decide to turn off features for it on its
>> own. It is unfortunate that the user has little control over what
>> applications are allowed to do and not do by default in Windows.
>>
>> I use Outpost Firewall Pro 2009 (excellent firewall software, by the
>> way) that has an additional feature called "Host protection". This
>> feature provides a great amount of options to restrict applications from
>> lower-level features such as process memory injection, window
>> subclassing, process termination, driver loading, direct disk access,
>> low-level network access, + more. It is very unfortunate that we need a
>> separate application for this.

>
> You need a whole helluva lot more than that. Do you even have a NAT
> firewall in your router?


*BULLSHIT*!!!
>
 
J

Jackie

Flightless Bird
Alias:

>It is different and much easier to fuck up. Like I wrote, a lame

*imitation*.

So how do you suggest they do it instead? Instead of just saying it is
"lame", try to come up with something that would work better.

> Never said it wasn't.

By saying this, it implies that you do not want to be wrong, and feel
the need to let us know that you were not wrong.

>

http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/New-attack-bypasses-anti-virus-software-997621.html

If your user account has UAC switched off and have full admin access,
this would have been an issue. It requires the application to be
elevated. It is only a real issue if the system is already penetrated
(meaning the user allowed this to happen). Even after penetration, it is
unlikely that such an attack would be successful because of the timing,
but this would indeed be even less likely on Linux (and even impossible
on some distros). This is because the lower-level feature allowing this
comes with more things to consider. This is not a bug, but it apparently
is not well enough protected and can be exploited. MS should maybe
provide APIs for greater integration with AV software.

> You need a whole helluva lot more than that. Do you even have a NAT
> firewall in your router?
>


No, I don't have a *hardware router* inside Windows 7.
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Jackie wrote:
> Alias:
>
> >It is different and much easier to fuck up. Like I wrote, a lame

> *imitation*.
>
> So how do you suggest they do it instead? Instead of just saying it is
> "lame", try to come up with something that would work better.
>
> > Never said it wasn't.

> By saying this, it implies that you do not want to be wrong, and feel
> the need to let us know that you were not wrong.
>
> >

> http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/New-attack-bypasses-anti-virus-software-997621.html
>
>
> If your user account has UAC switched off and have full admin access,
> this would have been an issue. It requires the application to be
> elevated. It is only a real issue if the system is already penetrated
> (meaning the user allowed this to happen). Even after penetration, it is
> unlikely that such an attack would be successful because of the timing,
> but this would indeed be even less likely on Linux (and even impossible
> on some distros). This is because the lower-level feature allowing this
> comes with more things to consider. This is not a bug, but it apparently
> is not well enough protected and can be exploited. MS should maybe
> provide APIs for greater integration with AV software.
>
>> You need a whole helluva lot more than that. Do you even have a NAT
>> firewall in your router?
>>

>
> No, I don't have a *hardware router* inside Windows 7.


I didn't say you should. You should have a router that comes with a NAT
firewall to protect your ports. It's a device, not a program.

--
Alias
 
Top