|
Teen Sister Masterbating 9159
wrote:
dbjjvlhdbrpobcmbngkgdtxpoevsvbqgrocymgcgfswjqeknbn zxqlezzbvbydrbkwvttesckwdnmwtcs Just curious, does this string of letters have any meaning? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
In (rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors), Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: dbjjvlhdbrpobcmbngkgdtxpoevsvbqgrocymgcgfswjqeknbn zxqlezzbvbydrbkwvttesckwdnmwtcs Just curious, does this string of letters have any meaning? I suspect it's just a pseudorandomly-generated "hashbuster" to help the spam avoid filters that hash the message body and check against known spam. -- "HTML's a cheap whore. Treating her with respect is possible, and even pref- erable, because once upon a time she was a beautiful and virginal format, but you shouldn't expect too much of her at this point." (Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes) |
In (rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors), Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: dbjjvlhdbrpobcmbngkgdtxpoevsvbqgrocymgcgfswjqeknbn zxqlezzbvbydrbkwvttesckwdnmwtcs Just curious, does this string of letters have any meaning? I suspect it's just a pseudorandomly-generated "hashbuster" to help the spam avoid filters that hash the message body and check against known spam. -- "HTML's a cheap whore. Treating her with respect is possible, and even pref- erable, because once upon a time she was a beautiful and virginal format, but you shouldn't expect too much of her at this point." (Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes) |
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:01:23 +0000 (UTC), (Mike
Andrews) wrote: In (rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors), Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: dbjjvlhdbrpobcmbngkgdtxpoevsvbqgrocymgcgfswjqeknbn zxqlezzbvbydrbkwvttesckwdnmwtcs Just curious, does this string of letters have any meaning? I suspect it's just a pseudorandomly-generated "hashbuster" to help the spam avoid filters that hash the message body and check against known spam. Exactly. As spamfiltering has gotten better, the spammers have gotten more sophisticated. The key clue is the attachment. Besides EXE files, ANY files with the extensions COM, BAT, SCR, and PIF could also be damaging programs. Note that sometimes a file will have a name ending in more than one extension, but only the last one matters. More trickery. Do not open any attachments that you have the slightest suspicion of, no matter who appears to have sent them. A friend could have a virus on their machine, sending out copies to everyone in their address book. Get a good antivirus program, including Norton Antivirus or MacAfee, which gets frequent updates of virus definitions, and run it on EVERY file received, via email, Internet, or disk. The time and money you should put into prevention are a tiny fraction of what could be involved in recovering from a virus on your machine. Happy trails, Gary (net.yogi.bear) ------------------------------------------------ at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom |
Mydoom.F just got into one machine here which had McAfee running and fully
updated. McAfee then could not clean it. The free cleaner from Symantec (Norton AV) did the job. You can build up all sorts of defences, or you can switch over to Linux, which I am strongly considering for this office. "Gary S." Idontwantspam@net wrote in message ... On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:01:23 +0000 (UTC), (Mike Andrews) wrote: In (rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors), Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: dbjjvlhdbrpobcmbngkgdtxpoevsvbqgrocymgcgfswjqeknbn zxqlezzbvbydrbkwvttesckwdn mwtcs Just curious, does this string of letters have any meaning? I suspect it's just a pseudorandomly-generated "hashbuster" to help the spam avoid filters that hash the message body and check against known spam. Exactly. As spamfiltering has gotten better, the spammers have gotten more sophisticated. The key clue is the attachment. Besides EXE files, ANY files with the extensions COM, BAT, SCR, and PIF could also be damaging programs. Note that sometimes a file will have a name ending in more than one extension, but only the last one matters. More trickery. Do not open any attachments that you have the slightest suspicion of, no matter who appears to have sent them. A friend could have a virus on their machine, sending out copies to everyone in their address book. Get a good antivirus program, including Norton Antivirus or MacAfee, which gets frequent updates of virus definitions, and run it on EVERY file received, via email, Internet, or disk. The time and money you should put into prevention are a tiny fraction of what could be involved in recovering from a virus on your machine. Happy trails, Gary (net.yogi.bear) ------------------------------------------------ at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom |
Mydoom.F just got into one machine here which had McAfee running and fully
updated. McAfee then could not clean it. The free cleaner from Symantec (Norton AV) did the job. You can build up all sorts of defences, or you can switch over to Linux, which I am strongly considering for this office. "Gary S." Idontwantspam@net wrote in message ... On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:01:23 +0000 (UTC), (Mike Andrews) wrote: In (rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors), Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: dbjjvlhdbrpobcmbngkgdtxpoevsvbqgrocymgcgfswjqeknbn zxqlezzbvbydrbkwvttesckwdn mwtcs Just curious, does this string of letters have any meaning? I suspect it's just a pseudorandomly-generated "hashbuster" to help the spam avoid filters that hash the message body and check against known spam. Exactly. As spamfiltering has gotten better, the spammers have gotten more sophisticated. The key clue is the attachment. Besides EXE files, ANY files with the extensions COM, BAT, SCR, and PIF could also be damaging programs. Note that sometimes a file will have a name ending in more than one extension, but only the last one matters. More trickery. Do not open any attachments that you have the slightest suspicion of, no matter who appears to have sent them. A friend could have a virus on their machine, sending out copies to everyone in their address book. Get a good antivirus program, including Norton Antivirus or MacAfee, which gets frequent updates of virus definitions, and run it on EVERY file received, via email, Internet, or disk. The time and money you should put into prevention are a tiny fraction of what could be involved in recovering from a virus on your machine. Happy trails, Gary (net.yogi.bear) ------------------------------------------------ at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom |
[newsgroups .antenna and .boatanchors dropped]
Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: dbjjvlhdbrpobcmbngkgdtxpoevsvbqgrocymgcgfswjqeknbn zxqlezzbvbydrbkwvttesckwdnmwtcs Just curious, does this string of letters have any meaning? This news publication has researched the issue for you: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/34840.html -John ork |
[newsgroups .antenna and .boatanchors dropped]
Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: dbjjvlhdbrpobcmbngkgdtxpoevsvbqgrocymgcgfswjqeknbn zxqlezzbvbydrbkwvttesckwdnmwtcs Just curious, does this string of letters have any meaning? This news publication has researched the issue for you: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/34840.html -John ork |
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:29:28 GMT, Gary S. Idontwantspam@net wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:01:23 +0000 (UTC), (Mike Andrews) wrote: In (rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors), Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: dbjjvlhdbrpobcmbngkgdtxpoevsvbqgrocymgcgfswjqeknbn zxqlezzbvbydrbkwvttesckwdnmwtcs Just curious, does this string of letters have any meaning? I suspect it's just a pseudorandomly-generated "hashbuster" to help the spam avoid filters that hash the message body and check against known spam. Exactly. As spamfiltering has gotten better, the spammers have gotten more sophisticated. The key clue is the attachment. Besides EXE files, ANY files with the extensions COM, BAT, SCR, and PIF could also be damaging programs. Note that sometimes a file will have a name ending in more than one extension, but only the last one matters. More trickery. This has been hitting the newsgroups in one form or another for some time, usually carrying a virus or link to a malicious site. I always wondered is any one ever fell for them. Do not open any attachments that you have the slightest suspicion of, no matter who appears to have sent them. A friend could have a virus on their machine, sending out copies to everyone in their address book. Get a good antivirus program, including Norton Antivirus or MacAfee, which gets frequent updates of virus definitions, and run it on EVERY file received, via email, Internet, or disk. Even then, if it's an executable, the sender is some one you don't know and if you do know them they don't verify they sent it on purpose...Don't open it. If your curiosity can't stand it... save the file, then run a scan on it, but that still doesn't guarantee it won't take you to a malicious site. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com The time and money you should put into prevention are a tiny fraction of what could be involved in recovering from a virus on your machine. Happy trails, Gary (net.yogi.bear) ------------------------------------------------ at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom |
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:29:28 GMT, Gary S. Idontwantspam@net wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:01:23 +0000 (UTC), (Mike Andrews) wrote: In (rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors), Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: dbjjvlhdbrpobcmbngkgdtxpoevsvbqgrocymgcgfswjqeknbn zxqlezzbvbydrbkwvttesckwdnmwtcs Just curious, does this string of letters have any meaning? I suspect it's just a pseudorandomly-generated "hashbuster" to help the spam avoid filters that hash the message body and check against known spam. Exactly. As spamfiltering has gotten better, the spammers have gotten more sophisticated. The key clue is the attachment. Besides EXE files, ANY files with the extensions COM, BAT, SCR, and PIF could also be damaging programs. Note that sometimes a file will have a name ending in more than one extension, but only the last one matters. More trickery. This has been hitting the newsgroups in one form or another for some time, usually carrying a virus or link to a malicious site. I always wondered is any one ever fell for them. Do not open any attachments that you have the slightest suspicion of, no matter who appears to have sent them. A friend could have a virus on their machine, sending out copies to everyone in their address book. Get a good antivirus program, including Norton Antivirus or MacAfee, which gets frequent updates of virus definitions, and run it on EVERY file received, via email, Internet, or disk. Even then, if it's an executable, the sender is some one you don't know and if you do know them they don't verify they sent it on purpose...Don't open it. If your curiosity can't stand it... save the file, then run a scan on it, but that still doesn't guarantee it won't take you to a malicious site. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com The time and money you should put into prevention are a tiny fraction of what could be involved in recovering from a virus on your machine. Happy trails, Gary (net.yogi.bear) ------------------------------------------------ at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom |
In message , Roger Halstead
writes I always wondered is any one ever fell for them. They do, a perfectly sane and reasonable colleague of mine was very pleased that Microsoft had taken the time to email him at work about their new security patch. He opened it. -- Bill |
In message , Roger Halstead
writes I always wondered is any one ever fell for them. They do, a perfectly sane and reasonable colleague of mine was very pleased that Microsoft had taken the time to email him at work about their new security patch. He opened it. -- Bill |
Bill wrote on 29/02/2004 15:13:
In message , Roger Halstead writes I always wondered is any one ever fell for them. They do, a perfectly sane and reasonable colleague of mine was very pleased that Microsoft had taken the time to email him at work about their new security patch. He opened it. That is arguably neither sane nor reasonable. -- Roger Barker, G4IDE - For UI-View go to - http://www.UI-View.com For WinPack go to - http://www.peaksys.co.uk |
Bill wrote on 29/02/2004 15:13:
In message , Roger Halstead writes I always wondered is any one ever fell for them. They do, a perfectly sane and reasonable colleague of mine was very pleased that Microsoft had taken the time to email him at work about their new security patch. He opened it. That is arguably neither sane nor reasonable. -- Roger Barker, G4IDE - For UI-View go to - http://www.UI-View.com For WinPack go to - http://www.peaksys.co.uk |
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 15:13:24 +0000, Bill
wrote: In message , Roger Halstead writes I always wondered is any one ever fell for them. They do, a perfectly sane and reasonable colleague of mine was very pleased that Microsoft had taken the time to email him at work about their new security patch. He opened it. The term for this is "social engineering", a fancy name for conning someone. Happy trails, Gary (net.yogi.bear) ------------------------------------------------ at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom |
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 15:13:24 +0000, Bill
wrote: In message , Roger Halstead writes I always wondered is any one ever fell for them. They do, a perfectly sane and reasonable colleague of mine was very pleased that Microsoft had taken the time to email him at work about their new security patch. He opened it. The term for this is "social engineering", a fancy name for conning someone. Happy trails, Gary (net.yogi.bear) ------------------------------------------------ at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom |
Roger wrote:
Bill wrote on 29/02/2004 15:13: In message , Roger Halstead writes I always wondered is any one ever fell for them. They do, a perfectly sane and reasonable colleague of mine was very pleased that Microsoft had taken the time to email him at work about their new security patch. He opened it. That is arguably neither sane nor reasonable. I know a lady who fell for that one TWICE and then got insulted when someone questioned her intelligence by having to explain all for a second time less than a month later. -Bill M |
Roger wrote:
Bill wrote on 29/02/2004 15:13: In message , Roger Halstead writes I always wondered is any one ever fell for them. They do, a perfectly sane and reasonable colleague of mine was very pleased that Microsoft had taken the time to email him at work about their new security patch. He opened it. That is arguably neither sane nor reasonable. I know a lady who fell for that one TWICE and then got insulted when someone questioned her intelligence by having to explain all for a second time less than a month later. -Bill M |
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message ...
Mydoom.F just got into one machine here which had McAfee running and fully updated. McAfee then could not clean it. The free cleaner from Symantec (Norton AV) did the job. You can build up all sorts of defences, or you can switch over to Linux, which I am strongly considering for this office. Who sez that Linux is "bulletproof" in this context? In the extreme assume that *everybody* switched to Linux: How long might you suppose it would take for the spammers to bust Linux and go on doing "business as usual"? I'll give 'em ten minutes . . . Brian w3rv "Gary S." Idontwantspam@net wrote in message ... On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:01:23 +0000 (UTC), (Mike Andrews) wrote: In (rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors), Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: dbjjvlhdbrpobcmbngkgdtxpoevsvbqgrocymgcgfswjqeknbn zxqlezzbvbydrbkwvttesckwdn mwtcs Just curious, does this string of letters have any meaning? I suspect it's just a pseudorandomly-generated "hashbuster" to help the spam avoid filters that hash the message body and check against known spam. Exactly. As spamfiltering has gotten better, the spammers have gotten more sophisticated. The key clue is the attachment. Besides EXE files, ANY files with the extensions COM, BAT, SCR, and PIF could also be damaging programs. Note that sometimes a file will have a name ending in more than one extension, but only the last one matters. More trickery. Do not open any attachments that you have the slightest suspicion of, no matter who appears to have sent them. A friend could have a virus on their machine, sending out copies to everyone in their address book. Get a good antivirus program, including Norton Antivirus or MacAfee, which gets frequent updates of virus definitions, and run it on EVERY file received, via email, Internet, or disk. The time and money you should put into prevention are a tiny fraction of what could be involved in recovering from a virus on your machine. Happy trails, Gary (net.yogi.bear) ------------------------------------------------ at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom |
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message ...
Mydoom.F just got into one machine here which had McAfee running and fully updated. McAfee then could not clean it. The free cleaner from Symantec (Norton AV) did the job. You can build up all sorts of defences, or you can switch over to Linux, which I am strongly considering for this office. Who sez that Linux is "bulletproof" in this context? In the extreme assume that *everybody* switched to Linux: How long might you suppose it would take for the spammers to bust Linux and go on doing "business as usual"? I'll give 'em ten minutes . . . Brian w3rv "Gary S." Idontwantspam@net wrote in message ... On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:01:23 +0000 (UTC), (Mike Andrews) wrote: In (rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors), Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: dbjjvlhdbrpobcmbngkgdtxpoevsvbqgrocymgcgfswjqeknbn zxqlezzbvbydrbkwvttesckwdn mwtcs Just curious, does this string of letters have any meaning? I suspect it's just a pseudorandomly-generated "hashbuster" to help the spam avoid filters that hash the message body and check against known spam. Exactly. As spamfiltering has gotten better, the spammers have gotten more sophisticated. The key clue is the attachment. Besides EXE files, ANY files with the extensions COM, BAT, SCR, and PIF could also be damaging programs. Note that sometimes a file will have a name ending in more than one extension, but only the last one matters. More trickery. Do not open any attachments that you have the slightest suspicion of, no matter who appears to have sent them. A friend could have a virus on their machine, sending out copies to everyone in their address book. Get a good antivirus program, including Norton Antivirus or MacAfee, which gets frequent updates of virus definitions, and run it on EVERY file received, via email, Internet, or disk. The time and money you should put into prevention are a tiny fraction of what could be involved in recovering from a virus on your machine. Happy trails, Gary (net.yogi.bear) ------------------------------------------------ at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom |
Brian Kelly wrote:
Who sez that Linux is "bulletproof" in this context? In the extreme assume that *everybody* switched to Linux: How long might you suppose it would take for the spammers to bust Linux and go on doing "business as usual"? Show me a Linux email client that executes binaries. Michael What has all this got to do with amateur radio? |
Brian Kelly wrote:
Who sez that Linux is "bulletproof" in this context? In the extreme assume that *everybody* switched to Linux: How long might you suppose it would take for the spammers to bust Linux and go on doing "business as usual"? Show me a Linux email client that executes binaries. Michael What has all this got to do with amateur radio? |
In (rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors), Michael Hofmann wrote:
Brian Kelly wrote: Who sez that Linux is "bulletproof" in this context? In the extreme assume that *everybody* switched to Linux: How long might you suppose it would take for the spammers to bust Linux and go on doing "business as usual"? Show me a Linux email client that executes binaries. If books were designed by Microsoft, the Anarchist's Cookbook would explode when you read it. -- Mark W. Schumann What has all this got to do with amateur radio? Little or nothing, but it is pertinent to those folks who read this newsgroup using Windows-based mail/newsreaders. -- Take it from the staff of a five-cat house: A group of cats is a "conceit." They'd like to be a "pride" but that would fool no one. -- Morely Dotes, in nanae |
In (rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors), Michael Hofmann wrote:
Brian Kelly wrote: Who sez that Linux is "bulletproof" in this context? In the extreme assume that *everybody* switched to Linux: How long might you suppose it would take for the spammers to bust Linux and go on doing "business as usual"? Show me a Linux email client that executes binaries. If books were designed by Microsoft, the Anarchist's Cookbook would explode when you read it. -- Mark W. Schumann What has all this got to do with amateur radio? Little or nothing, but it is pertinent to those folks who read this newsgroup using Windows-based mail/newsreaders. -- Take it from the staff of a five-cat house: A group of cats is a "conceit." They'd like to be a "pride" but that would fool no one. -- Morely Dotes, in nanae |
"Michael Hofmann" wrote in message ... What has all this got to do with amateur radio? Cyberterrorism is a real concern. Should a Windows vulnerability be exploited and take out significant numbers of systems, it would be an advantage to have your station fully operational, including all digital modes supported by your computer. So it has a lot to do with amateur radio to have a robust computer. |
"Michael Hofmann" wrote in message ... What has all this got to do with amateur radio? Cyberterrorism is a real concern. Should a Windows vulnerability be exploited and take out significant numbers of systems, it would be an advantage to have your station fully operational, including all digital modes supported by your computer. So it has a lot to do with amateur radio to have a robust computer. |
Brian Kelly wrote:
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message ... Mydoom.F just got into one machine here which had McAfee running and fully updated. McAfee then could not clean it. The free cleaner from Symantec (Norton AV) did the job. You can build up all sorts of defences, or you can switch over to Linux, which I am strongly considering for this office. Who sez that Linux is "bulletproof" in this context? In the extreme assume that *everybody* switched to Linux: How long might you suppose it would take for the spammers to bust Linux and go on doing "business as usual"? It's not bulletproof at all, but it doesn't have severe design deficiencies at least. They'll still keep finding buffer overrun problems in Linux, but we won't be seeing the sort of boneheaded design flaws that Windows has. The real problem is that the Windows issues aren't being fixed, they are just being patched around and obscured.... and then the next virus comes along. Until the fundamental problems get fixed, it's not going to get any better. With Linux, at least there are routes to get that sort of problem fixed if it should appear. I'm no Linux fan, but it's sure a big step up in terms of unified design. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Brian Kelly wrote:
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message ... Mydoom.F just got into one machine here which had McAfee running and fully updated. McAfee then could not clean it. The free cleaner from Symantec (Norton AV) did the job. You can build up all sorts of defences, or you can switch over to Linux, which I am strongly considering for this office. Who sez that Linux is "bulletproof" in this context? In the extreme assume that *everybody* switched to Linux: How long might you suppose it would take for the spammers to bust Linux and go on doing "business as usual"? It's not bulletproof at all, but it doesn't have severe design deficiencies at least. They'll still keep finding buffer overrun problems in Linux, but we won't be seeing the sort of boneheaded design flaws that Windows has. The real problem is that the Windows issues aren't being fixed, they are just being patched around and obscured.... and then the next virus comes along. Until the fundamental problems get fixed, it's not going to get any better. With Linux, at least there are routes to get that sort of problem fixed if it should appear. I'm no Linux fan, but it's sure a big step up in terms of unified design. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
In (rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors), Scott Dorsey wrote:
Brian Kelly wrote: "Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message ... Mydoom.F just got into one machine here which had McAfee running and fully updated. McAfee then could not clean it. The free cleaner from Symantec (Norton AV) did the job. You can build up all sorts of defences, or you can switch over to Linux, which I am strongly considering for this office. Who sez that Linux is "bulletproof" in this context? In the extreme assume that *everybody* switched to Linux: How long might you suppose it would take for the spammers to bust Linux and go on doing "business as usual"? It's not bulletproof at all, but it doesn't have severe design deficiencies at least. They'll still keep finding buffer overrun problems in Linux, but we won't be seeing the sort of boneheaded design flaws that Windows has. The real problem is that the Windows issues aren't being fixed, they are just being patched around and obscured.... and then the next virus comes along. Until the fundamental problems get fixed, it's not going to get any better. With Linux, at least there are routes to get that sort of problem fixed if it should appear. I'm no Linux fan, but it's sure a big step up in terms of unified design. To which I'll add that the malware writers are reverse-engineering the Wondows patches to see what the vulnerabilities are, and then writing and disseminating exploits for those vulnerabilities, secure in the knowledge that some large fraction of the Internet-connected Windows machines around the world will be running unpatched Windows. Open source is, IMHO, far preferable to that situation. I don't run Linux at home, and at work we run AIX, FreeBSD or Linux (up-to-date) on all machines exposed to the raw Internet. -- Should array indices start at 0 or 1? My compromise of 0.5 was rejected without, I thought, proper consideration. (Stan Kelly-Bootle) |
In (rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors), Scott Dorsey wrote:
Brian Kelly wrote: "Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message ... Mydoom.F just got into one machine here which had McAfee running and fully updated. McAfee then could not clean it. The free cleaner from Symantec (Norton AV) did the job. You can build up all sorts of defences, or you can switch over to Linux, which I am strongly considering for this office. Who sez that Linux is "bulletproof" in this context? In the extreme assume that *everybody* switched to Linux: How long might you suppose it would take for the spammers to bust Linux and go on doing "business as usual"? It's not bulletproof at all, but it doesn't have severe design deficiencies at least. They'll still keep finding buffer overrun problems in Linux, but we won't be seeing the sort of boneheaded design flaws that Windows has. The real problem is that the Windows issues aren't being fixed, they are just being patched around and obscured.... and then the next virus comes along. Until the fundamental problems get fixed, it's not going to get any better. With Linux, at least there are routes to get that sort of problem fixed if it should appear. I'm no Linux fan, but it's sure a big step up in terms of unified design. To which I'll add that the malware writers are reverse-engineering the Wondows patches to see what the vulnerabilities are, and then writing and disseminating exploits for those vulnerabilities, secure in the knowledge that some large fraction of the Internet-connected Windows machines around the world will be running unpatched Windows. Open source is, IMHO, far preferable to that situation. I don't run Linux at home, and at work we run AIX, FreeBSD or Linux (up-to-date) on all machines exposed to the raw Internet. -- Should array indices start at 0 or 1? My compromise of 0.5 was rejected without, I thought, proper consideration. (Stan Kelly-Bootle) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:51 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com