Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall. - Linux

This is a discussion on Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall. - Linux ; On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:20:20 -0500, DFS wrote: > Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >> Translation: You got your ass handed, and can't cope with the >> situation. >> >> You have to be shown to be utterly incompetent, > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 61 to 66 of 66

Thread: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

  1. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:20:20 -0500, DFS wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >> Translation: You got your ass handed, and can't cope with the
    >> situation.
    >>
    >> You have to be shown to be utterly incompetent,

    >
    >
    > Don't worry, CPH, when a dumbkopf like Kohlmann accuses you of incompetence,
    > you know you're his owner.
    >
    >
    > Here's where the scumbag accused me of rigging screenshots by turning
    > off anti-aliasing:
    >
    >> http://groups.google.com/group/comp....e012c465a663cf
    >>
    >> "You mean, you deliberately selected different fonts/fontsizes?
    >> And deselected Anti-aliasing too for KDE?
    >> Figures, after all you are one of the most dishonest widiots around
    >> here"

    >
    >
    > And here's later that same day, where the scumbag contradicts himself and
    > claims anti-aliasing has no effect on
    > screen shots:
    >
    >> http://groups.google.com/group/comp....8d7bbe0fe46061
    >>
    >> " BTW, it is so simple to test for yourself.
    >> Do a screen-shot of a text. Now disable anti-aliasing
    >> Do again screen-shot of same text.
    >> Compare both. They are exactly the same"

    >
    >
    > He never did apologize for the rude, incorrect accusation.


    Peter Kohlmann is truly a complete idiot.
    A washed up Windows programmer who claims he doesn't use Windows.

  2. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    > On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:20:20 -0500, DFS wrote:
    >
    >> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>
    >>> Translation: You got your ass handed, and can't cope with the
    >>> situation.
    >>>
    >>> You have to be shown to be utterly incompetent,

    >>
    >> Don't worry, CPH, when a dumbkopf like Kohlmann accuses you of incompetence,
    >> you know you're his owner.
    >>
    >>
    >> Here's where the scumbag accused me of rigging screenshots by turning
    >> off anti-aliasing:
    >>
    >>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp....e012c465a663cf
    >>>
    >>> "You mean, you deliberately selected different fonts/fontsizes?
    >>> And deselected Anti-aliasing too for KDE?
    >>> Figures, after all you are one of the most dishonest widiots around
    >>> here"

    >>
    >> And here's later that same day, where the scumbag contradicts himself and
    >> claims anti-aliasing has no effect on
    >> screen shots:
    >>
    >>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp....8d7bbe0fe46061
    >>>
    >>> " BTW, it is so simple to test for yourself.
    >>> Do a screen-shot of a text. Now disable anti-aliasing
    >>> Do again screen-shot of same text.
    >>> Compare both. They are exactly the same"

    >>
    >> He never did apologize for the rude, incorrect accusation.

    >
    > Peter Kohlmann is truly a complete idiot.
    > A washed up Windows programmer who claims he doesn't use Windows.


    Peter Kohlmann is some kind of a *clown* and *manic*, and he can't back
    his lip service up. He is a dumbass that doesn't know his ass from a
    hole in the wall. Linux has blown his mind, tricked him out, turned him
    out, and stripped him butt necked.

    And he was some kind of programmer. This maniac was a programmer? He has
    reinvented himself to be Superman in his mind, with a red Linux cape on
    his back.

    Let's see if he can be convinced that he is really a Superman, point him
    to a tall building and see if he will leap off.

    If he leaps, I'll be there to toss his computer or computer(s), all his
    Linux and Windows stuff after him, and see what will hit the pavement
    first. ;-)

    Most likely, they will all hit at the same time, and put him out of his
    misery. Is he retired?




  3. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    Thufir wrote:

    > I have to admit that I don't understand these holes. Outlook
    > downloads the text file, which has some HTML and perhaps a JPG
    > attached. Outlook then, through HTTP, grabs, perhaps, a JPG. In
    > either case the JPG file is opened. Opening JPG launches the virus
    > (which is attached to the JPG)?


    It's a Linux thang too:

    http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/122499/104/ "xzgv and zgv attempt
    to decode JPEG images within the CMYK/YCCK colour space incorrectly,
    potentially resulting in the execution of arbitrary code."

    Related: http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/125165 Multiple input
    validation errors have been identified that allow arbitrary code execution
    on a [Gentoo] user's system via the handling of malicious Flash files.

    But one thing you definitely don't have to ever in your life worry about is
    Linux getting the market share to attract thousands of virus writers
    interested in creating these attacks.




  4. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    [snips]

    On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:06:55 -0500, Cross Posting HO wrote:

    >>> A DLL is not a system file. A DLL is a Dynamic Link Library. You
    >>> cannot corrupt a DLL.

    >>
    >> Sure you can. What would hinder a virus to overwrite part of the DLL
    >> and/or append itself to it?

    >
    > Comon man, the application that was using the DLL legitimately would
    > start to blow up, and it would be a sure sign of trouble. But that would
    > take for you to know something about OOp(s) programming.


    Err... you certainly can corrupt a DLL without the app being aware of
    it. Hell, you can corrupt the executable itself without the app being
    aware of it.

    The usual way is to modify the "entry points" - the points where
    functions in the DLL are linked to. Point it to a different spot, with
    your exploit code. When the function is called, your exploit code runs,
    does whatever it needs to do, then passes the parameters on to the
    original function, passes the results back to the caller. As far as the
    app is concerned, the function worked just like usual.

    > What man? Do think that a worm or virus cannot drop a payload to be
    > executed once the user points and clicks, a standalone or self contained
    > virus?


    Of course it can; it's just not limited to doing things that way.


  5. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:46:18 +0000, AZ Nomad wrote:

    > On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:24:06 +0000, Kelsey Bjarnason
    > wrote:
    >>[snips]

    >
    >>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:06:55 -0500, Cross Posting HO wrote:

    >
    >>>>> A DLL is not a system file. A DLL is a Dynamic Link Library. You
    >>>>> cannot corrupt a DLL.
    >>>>
    >>>> Sure you can. What would hinder a virus to overwrite part of the DLL
    >>>> and/or append itself to it?
    >>>
    >>> Comon man, the application that was using the DLL legitimately would
    >>> start to blow up, and it would be a sure sign of trouble. But that
    >>> would take for you to know something about OOp(s) programming.

    >
    >>Err... you certainly can corrupt a DLL without the app being aware of
    >>it. Hell, you can corrupt the executable itself without the app being
    >>aware of it.

    >
    > That blithering idiot doesn't understand that modifying a DLL or
    > Executable without the user knowing about it is *exactly* how viruses
    > operate.
    >
    > It wouldn't be much of a virus if the host immediately knew about it.


    Indeed. He seems blissfully unaware that *most* viruses - perhaps not
    most current ones, I wouldn't know, not having to deal with such things
    anymore - but historically most viruses - actually directly modify the
    executable files.

    He might also be unaware of applications such as PECompact, which
    compress the executable, tack on a decompression stub and when executed,
    decompress the executable in memory - key point being, modify the living
    daylights out of the executable.

    He might also be unaware of more than one tool available which modifies
    executables by tagging them with a "fingerprint" which can be checked to
    see if the executable was modified or not... and in some cases, IIRC,
    they actually glue a validator right into the EXE which validates it
    before running.

    All of these and more _require_ the ability to modify the executable, yet
    still have the result work _as if it were not modified_ and it is a
    comparatively trivial thing to do.

    One does wonder.


  6. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:24:06 +0000, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >[snips]


    >On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:06:55 -0500, Cross Posting HO wrote:


    >>>> A DLL is not a system file. A DLL is a Dynamic Link Library. You
    >>>> cannot corrupt a DLL.
    >>>
    >>> Sure you can. What would hinder a virus to overwrite part of the DLL
    >>> and/or append itself to it?

    >>
    >> Comon man, the application that was using the DLL legitimately would
    >> start to blow up, and it would be a sure sign of trouble. But that would
    >> take for you to know something about OOp(s) programming.


    >Err... you certainly can corrupt a DLL without the app being aware of
    >it. Hell, you can corrupt the executable itself without the app being
    >aware of it.


    That blithering idiot doesn't understand that modifying a DLL or Executable
    without the user knowing about it is *exactly* how viruses operate.

    It wouldn't be much of a virus if the host immediately knew about it.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4