Will IE6 under Wine get infected? - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Will IE6 under Wine get infected? - Ubuntu ; dennis@home wrote: > > > "jellybean stonerfish" wrote in message > news:RpuFk.5938$mh.717@newsfe29.ams2... >> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:44:43 +0100, dennis@home wrote: >> >> >>>> Can you post the proof for me, as I don't remember reading it before. >>>> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 145

Thread: Will IE6 under Wine get infected?

  1. Re: Will IE6 under Wine get infected?

    dennis@home wrote:

    >
    >
    > "jellybean stonerfish" wrote in message
    > news:RpuFk.5938$mh.717@newsfe29.ams2...
    >> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:44:43 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>> Can you post the proof for me, as I don't remember reading it before.
    >>>> I will be impartial, and tell you two who is right, then we can
    >>>> eliminate this part of the flame war, and get on to better arguments.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Its all on google.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> There are a lot of things "on google", this group is not.
    >> You keep saying you posted proof, yet when asked to repost your proof,
    >> you evade the answer.
    >> I guess AZ Nomad was right when he said
    >> "That will *never* happen. Denis is too much of a lazy "

    >
    > I found it using google, you can do the same.


    What part of "this group is not retained by google" was too difficult for
    you to understand?

    > I don't keep a record of news groups for months so I can't post the
    > message links.


    Oh, and just before you wrote that you "found it using google".
    So you found it, and now you don't have it. Try to make /some/ sense, will
    you?

    > If you want to believe what AZ posted then feel free it makes no
    > difference to the facts.
    >>


    And the facts are that you are clueless
    --
    You're genuinely bogus.


  2. Re: Will IE6 under Wine get infected?



    "jellybean stonerfish" wrote in message
    news:dfuFk.5574$mh.4290@newsfe29.ams2...
    > On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 20:02:15 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >> This all started because I said don't download an iso from a link in a
    >> usenet post unless you know who it is and trust them. You then went on
    >> to try and prove that it was safe to download random isos from unknown
    >> posters.

    >
    > The creators of the original happy.iso post an md5sum on their site,
    > next to the happy.iso, but their site is slow, so I only grab the md5sum
    > from them, not the happy.iso. I search the web for happy.iso, and find a
    > random site that offers a copy. This random site is fast, so I download
    > happy.iso from them.
    >
    > I compare the md5sum from the happy.iso file I downloaded with the md5sum
    > from the happy.iso creators. If they are the same md5sum, are you saying
    > they might not be the same happy.iso?


    I am saying there is a known problem with MD5 where two files can have
    different contents but the same sum.
    As nobody at happy.iso has checked to see if a collision is possible with
    that file there may well be a different file with the same checksum. This is
    collisions as CHunter and co keep on about.

    It is worse than that as the MD5sum programs don't take any notice of the
    files length so it is possible to alter the MD5 sum by adding data to the
    end as well as changing the contents. However the burning software doesn't
    care about the extra data and the iso will burn fine. However the actual
    disk may well do something undesirable.
    Its that simple but it appears to be to much for some of the idiots around
    here.

    The reality is that they are insane and think everything I say is an attack
    on linux just because I post from windows.
    You can tell from the way they keep introducing repositories and stuff like
    that when I have only talked about ISOs from places other than known good
    sources.




  3. Re: Will IE6 under Wine get infected?

    dennis@home wrote:

    >
    >
    > "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    > news:48e67434$0$28902$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net...
    >> dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    >>> news:48e621cf$0$6583$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
    >>>> jellybean stonerfish wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 08:54:19 +0000, Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> dennis@home wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I did demonstrate the flaw (well I posted proof that someone else
    >>>>>>> had),
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> No you didn't. Total BS as usual. **** off back to your useless
    >>>>>> Windows, and leave the grown-ups alone.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> *PLONK*
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Can you post the proof for me, as I don't remember reading it before.
    >>>>> I
    >>>>> will be impartial, and tell you two who is right, then we can
    >>>>> eliminate this part of the flame war, and get on to better arguments.
    >>>>
    >>>> Search it yourself.
    >>>> The theme has been discussed several times, as MD5-dennis is unable to
    >>>> understand the difference between a "collision attack" and a "pre image
    >>>> attack"
    >>>
    >>> Do you want to try again?
    >>>
    >>> I know full well what a pre-image and a collision attack are.

    >>
    >> Maybe *now* you have an idea. In the original thread several people tried
    >> to
    >> lecture you of those differences.
    >>
    >>> What you fail to grasp is that when you generate an MD5 sum you have no
    >>> idea if a collision can be done with that file and sum.

    >>
    >> I know exactly that a collision can *not* be done.
    >> As you have no control over the original file, you can't even do a
    >> collision
    >> attack. Do do a successful collision attack, you absolutely need control
    >> over *both*

    >
    > Yet again you show that you just can't understand something very simple.
    > I will say it very slowly.
    > Unless you test your file you cannot know that a collision can't happen.
    > You don't test so you don't know.
    > You are wrong live with it.


    Oh, pray tell: How do you "test" a file to know that "a collision can't
    happen", Oh Absolutely Clueless One?

    >>> I even posted proof that someone had taken a file and then changed half
    >>> of
    >>> it to something else and kept the same MD5 sum.

    >>
    >>> That was a small file.

    >>
    >> No, you have not even understood *that* simple example correctly. You
    >> have to alter *both* files to be able to generate a same MD5 sum for
    >> both. *And*
    >> you get no control over the resulting MD5 hash
    >>
    >>> Maths says that with a large file generating collisions becomes easier.
    >>> And as we were discussing ISO images at the time they are pretty big
    >>> compared to the example.

    >>
    >> Math says you are an idiot
    >> Because the larger the files are, the longer it takes a generate a MD5
    >> sum for any given file, rendering collision attacks progressivly slower
    >> than with short files

    >
    > Are you now claiming that there are collision attacks but it just takes
    > time?
    > Not long ago you were stating there were no collision attacks possible.


    You incredibly idiotic liar, *I* was the one who explained the difference
    between collision attacks and pre-image attacks to you first

    > BTW as you don't know what the method of attack is you don't know how long
    > it will take.
    > WEP took weeks, then days, now its a few minutes or less as different ways
    > of exploiting the weakness have appeared.


    Why don't you just get your very first clue, you idiotic liar?
    And why do you sully this newsgroup with your stupid drivel? You know
    *nothing* at all about linux, you are generally clueless (even about
    windows) and yet you put your stinking droppings all over this group

    --
    Support your local Search and Rescue unit -- get lost.


  4. Re: Will IE6 under Wine get infected?



    "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    news:48e684cd$0$28907$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    >> news:48e67434$0$28902$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net...
    >>> dennis@home wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    >>>> news:48e621cf$0$6583$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
    >>>>> jellybean stonerfish wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 08:54:19 +0000, Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> dennis@home wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I did demonstrate the flaw (well I posted proof that someone else
    >>>>>>>> had),
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> No you didn't. Total BS as usual. **** off back to your useless
    >>>>>>> Windows, and leave the grown-ups alone.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> *PLONK*
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Can you post the proof for me, as I don't remember reading it before.
    >>>>>> I
    >>>>>> will be impartial, and tell you two who is right, then we can
    >>>>>> eliminate this part of the flame war, and get on to better arguments.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Search it yourself.
    >>>>> The theme has been discussed several times, as MD5-dennis is unable to
    >>>>> understand the difference between a "collision attack" and a "pre
    >>>>> image
    >>>>> attack"
    >>>>
    >>>> Do you want to try again?
    >>>>
    >>>> I know full well what a pre-image and a collision attack are.
    >>>
    >>> Maybe *now* you have an idea. In the original thread several people
    >>> tried
    >>> to
    >>> lecture you of those differences.
    >>>
    >>>> What you fail to grasp is that when you generate an MD5 sum you have no
    >>>> idea if a collision can be done with that file and sum.
    >>>
    >>> I know exactly that a collision can *not* be done.
    >>> As you have no control over the original file, you can't even do a
    >>> collision
    >>> attack. Do do a successful collision attack, you absolutely need control
    >>> over *both*

    >>
    >> Yet again you show that you just can't understand something very simple.
    >> I will say it very slowly.
    >> Unless you test your file you cannot know that a collision can't happen.
    >> You don't test so you don't know.
    >> You are wrong live with it.

    >
    > Oh, pray tell: How do you "test" a file to know that "a collision can't
    > happen", Oh Absolutely Clueless One?


    You are the one that claims its impossible to get a collision so you must
    know how.
    If you don't know how then everything you say must be made up.
    >
    >>>> I even posted proof that someone had taken a file and then changed half
    >>>> of
    >>>> it to something else and kept the same MD5 sum.
    >>>
    >>>> That was a small file.
    >>>
    >>> No, you have not even understood *that* simple example correctly. You
    >>> have to alter *both* files to be able to generate a same MD5 sum for
    >>> both. *And*
    >>> you get no control over the resulting MD5 hash
    >>>
    >>>> Maths says that with a large file generating collisions becomes easier.
    >>>> And as we were discussing ISO images at the time they are pretty big
    >>>> compared to the example.
    >>>
    >>> Math says you are an idiot
    >>> Because the larger the files are, the longer it takes a generate a MD5
    >>> sum for any given file, rendering collision attacks progressivly slower
    >>> than with short files

    >>
    >> Are you now claiming that there are collision attacks but it just takes
    >> time?
    >> Not long ago you were stating there were no collision attacks possible.

    >
    > You incredibly idiotic liar, *I* was the one who explained the difference
    > between collision attacks and pre-image attacks to you first
    >
    >> BTW as you don't know what the method of attack is you don't know how
    >> long
    >> it will take.
    >> WEP took weeks, then days, now its a few minutes or less as different
    >> ways
    >> of exploiting the weakness have appeared.

    >
    > Why don't you just get your very first clue, you idiotic liar?
    > And why do you sully this newsgroup with your stupid drivel? You know
    > *nothing* at all about linux, you are generally clueless (even about
    > windows) and yet you put your stinking droppings all over this group


    You keep bringing your sh!t up.
    If and its a big if, it paints linux in a bad way then that would be your
    fault as I didn't mention linux.
    In fact you can't provide one thing I have said that says linux is bad.
    You are so insane that you think I have attacked linux when I haven't even
    mentioned it.


  5. Re: Will IE6 under Wine get infected?

    dennis@home wrote:

    >
    >
    > "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message


    < snip >

    >>> Yet again you show that you just can't understand something very simple.
    >>> I will say it very slowly.
    >>> Unless you test your file you cannot know that a collision can't happen.
    >>> You don't test so you don't know.
    >>> You are wrong live with it.

    >>
    >> Oh, pray tell: How do you "test" a file to know that "a collision can't
    >> happen", Oh Absolutely Clueless One?

    >
    > You are the one that claims its impossible to get a collision so you must
    > know how.
    > If you don't know how then everything you say must be made up.


    And since you are the one who continues to say it can be done, it is your
    problem to show how

    And evasion of question noted: How do you "test" a file to know that "a
    collision can't happen"?
    *How* you stupid liar? You keep on blustering with this totally
    idiotic "testing of files" to "know that a collision can't happen".

    What on earth do you want to say with that drivel? You know that it is
    bull****

    >>>>> I even posted proof that someone had taken a file and then changed
    >>>>> half of
    >>>>> it to something else and kept the same MD5 sum.
    >>>>
    >>>>> That was a small file.
    >>>>
    >>>> No, you have not even understood *that* simple example correctly. You
    >>>> have to alter *both* files to be able to generate a same MD5 sum for
    >>>> both. *And*
    >>>> you get no control over the resulting MD5 hash
    >>>>
    >>>>> Maths says that with a large file generating collisions becomes
    >>>>> easier. And as we were discussing ISO images at the time they are
    >>>>> pretty big compared to the example.
    >>>>
    >>>> Math says you are an idiot
    >>>> Because the larger the files are, the longer it takes a generate a MD5
    >>>> sum for any given file, rendering collision attacks progressivly slower
    >>>> than with short files
    >>>
    >>> Are you now claiming that there are collision attacks but it just takes
    >>> time?
    >>> Not long ago you were stating there were no collision attacks possible.

    >>
    >> You incredibly idiotic liar, *I* was the one who explained the difference
    >> between collision attacks and pre-image attacks to you first
    >>
    >>> BTW as you don't know what the method of attack is you don't know how
    >>> long
    >>> it will take.
    >>> WEP took weeks, then days, now its a few minutes or less as different
    >>> ways
    >>> of exploiting the weakness have appeared.

    >>
    >> Why don't you just get your very first clue, you idiotic liar?
    >> And why do you sully this newsgroup with your stupid drivel? You know
    >> *nothing* at all about linux, you are generally clueless (even about
    >> windows) and yet you put your stinking droppings all over this group

    >
    > You keep bringing your sh!t up.
    > If and its a big if, it paints linux in a bad way then that would be your
    > fault as I didn't mention linux.


    I don't care if you mention linux, as you know *nothing* about it. Yet you
    keep on pesting this group with inane idiocy

    > In fact you can't provide one thing I have said that says linux is bad.


    You have not said one thing about it which reeks of truth, too

    > You are so insane that you think I have attacked linux when I haven't even
    > mentioned it.


    Why *are* you here, MS fanboi? You contribute nothing except senseless
    drivel
    --
    I say you need to visit Clues 'R' Us. They are having a special on
    slightly used clues.


  6. Re: Will IE6 under Wine get infected?

    On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:46:40 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

    > I am saying there is a known problem with MD5 where two files can have
    > different contents but the same sum.
    > As nobody at happy.iso has checked to see if a collision is possible
    > with that file there may well be a different file with the same
    > checksum. This is collisions as CHunter and co keep on about.
    >
    > It is worse than that as the MD5sum programs don't take any notice of
    > the files length so it is possible to alter the MD5 sum by adding data
    > to the end as well as changing the contents. However the burning
    > software doesn't care about the extra data and the iso will burn fine.
    > However the actual disk may well do something undesirable. Its that
    > simple but it appears to be to much for some of the idiots around here.


    Ok, I understand your viewpoint, and it sounds like a reasonable
    concern. Do you have any proof that what your are saying can happen.
    Like maybe a link to two different files that generate the same md5sum.

    stonerfish

  7. Re: Will IE6 under Wine get infected?

    "dennis@home" wrote in
    news:gc60br$uf8$1@news.datemas.de:

    > ............... and think everything I say is an
    > attack on linux just because I post from windows.


    Hmmmmmm........sounds familiar alright. I've just taken to nuking any of
    the extremists here and other newsgroups I frequent; life's just to bloody
    short to bother with those rascals, IMHO.





  8. Re: Will IE6 under Wine get infected?

    On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:29:26 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:43:34 -0500, AZ Nomad wrote:


    >> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:19:02 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
    >>>news:slrnge50ga.7b6.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
    >>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:33:21 +0100, dennis@home
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
    >>>>>news:slrnge2oco.63e.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Or you want to run any of thousands of applications that can only run
    >>>>>> as admin. Turbotax is a lovely example.
    >>>>
    >>>>>Admin is only required to install it or update it,
    >>>> You can't run it if you're not admin as the first thing it wants to do
    >>>> is do updates. If you don't let it do updates, it won't run.

    >>
    >>>Cr@p program then.

    >> Nope. Just written for the windows OS where the default user is
    >> invariably an admin.
    >>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>the same as many linux apps require root.
    >>>> Name one.

    >>
    >>>Anything you want to install in bin for a start.
    >>>You can't install stuff in some places without root.

    >> Irrelevent. Install != use.
    >>
    >> Again, please name a single linux app that needs root to run.


    >nvidia-settings.
    >Unless you plan on losing your settings when you close your session because
    >it won't write xorg.conf as a user.


    nvidia-settings isn't an application.

    Are you such a clueless admin-running-everything moron that you can't
    tell the difference between a utility to control system settings and
    an application?

    Do you use nvidia-settings much in your day-to-day work? Use it to
    compose letters, read your email, browse the web, play music, perhaps
    rip a DVD or two, or as a game? Wow, how exciting!

    I know that windows users like to spend at least an hour a day
    defraging their hard drives, but that doesn't make it an application.

  9. Re: Will IE6 under Wine get infected?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, AZ Nomad belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    >>>
    >>> Again, please name a single linux app that needs root to run.

    >
    >>nvidia-settings.
    >>Unless you plan on losing your settings when you close your session because
    >>it won't write xorg.conf as a user.

    >
    > nvidia-settings isn't an application.


    Besides, from what I remember (from a year or more ago), if you ran it,
    it put a config file in $HOME.

    And that config file screwed up my login, so I stopped using nvidia
    settings.

    --
    Do you mean to say that I can read mail with vi too? ;-)
    Didn't you know that?
    :r /var/spool/mail/jk
    -- Seen on #debian-mentors

  10. Re: Will IE6 under Wine get infected?

    dennis@home wrote:



    > Funny how so many people can browse the internet quite safely using IE
    > even though you can't quite manage it.





    Aren't you confusing "safely" with "luckily"?

    You obviously do not believe in "playing the odds" eh?


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, AT&T, Intel, Novell, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  11. Re: Will IE6 under Wine get infected?

    AZ Nomad wrote:

    > He still buys his updates once every seven years in the form of a new
    > computer.
    >





    Good one.


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, AT&T, Intel, Novell, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  12. Re: Will IE6 under Wine get infected?

    On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 00:37:41 +0000, Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >AZ Nomad wrote:


    >> He still buys his updates once every seven years in the form of a new
    >> computer.


    >More likely he gets the "Tech Guys" to try and remove all the malware once a
    >month.


    It isn't that bad. All he uses the computer for is to run defrag.

  13. Re: Will IE6 under Wine get infected?

    AZ Nomad wrote:

    > He still buys his updates once every seven years in the form of a new
    > computer.


    More likely he gets the "Tech Guys" to try and remove all the malware once a
    month.

    C.

  14. Re: Will IE6 under Wine get infected?

    jellybean stonerfish wrote:

    > Ok, I understand your viewpoint, and it sounds like a reasonable
    > concern. Do you have any proof that what your are saying can happen.
    > Like maybe a link to two different files that generate the same md5sum.


    HAHAHAHA! Don't expect to see that in your lifetime!

    C.

  15. Re: Will IE6 under Wine get infected?

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > Why don't you just get your very first clue, you idiotic liar?


    Just *plonk* the Dennis twat. He hasn't a clue, and his only talent is in
    provoking spurious argument. Don't give him the attention he craves.

    > And why do you sully this newsgroup with your stupid drivel?


    He does it because he thinks he can cause a lot of annoyance. He's been
    shown to be stupid, so he's not worth conversing with - he's like the
    random stinking drunks that accost people in city centres. Just ignore
    him.

    > You know *nothing* at all about linux, you are generally clueless (even
    > about windows) and yet you put your stinking droppings all over this

    group.

    Nobody knows much about Windows - not even Microsoft. The NT kernel was
    never documented, and is just a tatty binary lump that can't be modified
    for fear of destroying it. Dennis probably believes that he knows the
    source code for the NT kernel - /that/ is how bizarre he is.

    C.



  16. Re: Will IE6 under Wine get infected?



    "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    news:48e68c60$0$28913$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message

    >
    > < snip >
    >
    >>>> Yet again you show that you just can't understand something very
    >>>> simple.
    >>>> I will say it very slowly.
    >>>> Unless you test your file you cannot know that a collision can't
    >>>> happen.
    >>>> You don't test so you don't know.
    >>>> You are wrong live with it.
    >>>
    >>> Oh, pray tell: How do you "test" a file to know that "a collision can't
    >>> happen", Oh Absolutely Clueless One?

    >>
    >> You are the one that claims its impossible to get a collision so you must
    >> know how.
    >> If you don't know how then everything you say must be made up.

    >
    > And since you are the one who continues to say it can be done, it is your
    > problem to show how
    >
    > And evasion of question noted: How do you "test" a file to know that "a
    > collision can't happen"?
    > *How* you stupid liar? You keep on blustering with this totally
    > idiotic "testing of files" to "know that a collision can't happen".


    You are the idiot that claims its impossible so you prove it.
    I have put forwards an example, and a potential way of doing it and *you*
    claim its not possible so *you* must be able to prove it.
    If you can't prove it then *you* are the one that needs to be ignored.

    As it is I don't even think you understand the basics of how MD5 works.
    You don't even appear to grasp the idea that you can extend a file to change
    its MD5 sum without other applications even noticing for instance.
    You are just an idiot that thinks abuse is the best way to win an argument.

    >
    > What on earth do you want to say with that drivel? You know that it is
    > bull****
    >
    >>>>>> I even posted proof that someone had taken a file and then changed
    >>>>>> half of
    >>>>>> it to something else and kept the same MD5 sum.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> That was a small file.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No, you have not even understood *that* simple example correctly. You
    >>>>> have to alter *both* files to be able to generate a same MD5 sum for
    >>>>> both. *And*
    >>>>> you get no control over the resulting MD5 hash
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Maths says that with a large file generating collisions becomes
    >>>>>> easier. And as we were discussing ISO images at the time they are
    >>>>>> pretty big compared to the example.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Math says you are an idiot
    >>>>> Because the larger the files are, the longer it takes a generate a MD5
    >>>>> sum for any given file, rendering collision attacks progressivly
    >>>>> slower
    >>>>> than with short files
    >>>>
    >>>> Are you now claiming that there are collision attacks but it just takes
    >>>> time?
    >>>> Not long ago you were stating there were no collision attacks possible.
    >>>
    >>> You incredibly idiotic liar, *I* was the one who explained the
    >>> difference
    >>> between collision attacks and pre-image attacks to you first
    >>>
    >>>> BTW as you don't know what the method of attack is you don't know how
    >>>> long
    >>>> it will take.
    >>>> WEP took weeks, then days, now its a few minutes or less as different
    >>>> ways
    >>>> of exploiting the weakness have appeared.
    >>>
    >>> Why don't you just get your very first clue, you idiotic liar?
    >>> And why do you sully this newsgroup with your stupid drivel? You know
    >>> *nothing* at all about linux, you are generally clueless (even about
    >>> windows) and yet you put your stinking droppings all over this group

    >>
    >> You keep bringing your sh!t up.
    >> If and its a big if, it paints linux in a bad way then that would be your
    >> fault as I didn't mention linux.

    >
    > I don't care if you mention linux, as you know *nothing* about it. Yet you
    > keep on pesting this group with inane idiocy
    >
    >> In fact you can't provide one thing I have said that says linux is bad.

    >
    > You have not said one thing about it which reeks of truth, too
    >
    >> You are so insane that you think I have attacked linux when I haven't
    >> even
    >> mentioned it.

    >
    > Why *are* you here, MS fanboi? You contribute nothing except senseless
    > drivel


    Why are you here?
    All you do is make it look like linux users are insane.
    With you providing an example of how happy and helpful the linux community
    is M$ will "win" without trying.
    I would think most linux users wish whomever it is that gave you linux
    hadn't.



  17. Re: Will IE6 under Wine get infected?



    "jellybean stonerfish" wrote in message
    news:61wFk.3268$WO7.28@newsfe15.ams2...
    > On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:46:40 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >> I am saying there is a known problem with MD5 where two files can have
    >> different contents but the same sum.
    >> As nobody at happy.iso has checked to see if a collision is possible
    >> with that file there may well be a different file with the same
    >> checksum. This is collisions as CHunter and co keep on about.
    >>
    >> It is worse than that as the MD5sum programs don't take any notice of
    >> the files length so it is possible to alter the MD5 sum by adding data
    >> to the end as well as changing the contents. However the burning
    >> software doesn't care about the extra data and the iso will burn fine.
    >> However the actual disk may well do something undesirable. Its that
    >> simple but it appears to be to much for some of the idiots around here.

    >
    > Ok, I understand your viewpoint, and it sounds like a reasonable
    > concern. Do you have any proof that what your are saying can happen.
    > Like maybe a link to two different files that generate the same md5sum.


    There is an example or two on the web of small files where it has been done.
    That is what I said you could find using google before the stupid ones
    decided I was talking about the usenet posts.

    I expect that you can find more if you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD5
    which someone is updating.
    >
    > stonerfish



  18. Re: Will IE6 under Wine get infected?

    dennis@home wrote:

    >
    >
    > "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    > news:48e68c60$0$28913$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net...
    >> dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message

    >>
    >> < snip >
    >>
    >>>>> Yet again you show that you just can't understand something very
    >>>>> simple.
    >>>>> I will say it very slowly.
    >>>>> Unless you test your file you cannot know that a collision can't
    >>>>> happen.
    >>>>> You don't test so you don't know.
    >>>>> You are wrong live with it.
    >>>>
    >>>> Oh, pray tell: How do you "test" a file to know that "a collision can't
    >>>> happen", Oh Absolutely Clueless One?
    >>>
    >>> You are the one that claims its impossible to get a collision so you
    >>> must know how.
    >>> If you don't know how then everything you say must be made up.

    >>
    >> And since you are the one who continues to say it can be done, it is your
    >> problem to show how
    >>
    >> And evasion of question noted: How do you "test" a file to know that "a
    >> collision can't happen"?
    >> *How* you stupid liar? You keep on blustering with this totally
    >> idiotic "testing of files" to "know that a collision can't happen".

    >
    > You are the idiot that claims its impossible so you prove it.
    > I have put forwards an example, and a potential way of doing it and *you*
    > claim its not possible so *you* must be able to prove it.
    > If you can't prove it then *you* are the one that needs to be ignored.


    You have put nothing forward. And *you* claimed this bull**** about MD5,
    starting all this idiocy. Put up or shut up.

    > As it is I don't even think you understand the basics of how MD5 works.


    Well, as I had to lecture you (you did not even know the differences about
    the types of attacks) it seems to be a bad joke when you claim such garbage

    > You don't even appear to grasp the idea that you can extend a file to
    > change its MD5 sum without other applications even noticing for instance.
    > You are just an idiot that thinks abuse is the best way to win an
    > argument.


    You still fail to provide *any* means how to do that. Simply "extending a
    file" will never result in 2 files having the same MD5 hash.
    A collision attack on MD5 *absolutely* *needs* both files to be under your
    control, as you have to alter *both* to achieve the same MD5 for both.
    There is not enough combined computing power in the world to achieve that
    means any other way.
    And then you can't control the MD5 sum itself, so you will collide with the
    published ones which you also can't control

    In short: Your "attack vector" is so outrageously bull**** it simply has to
    come from a Vista user. Nobody else would be dumb enough for such an idiocy

    < snip more MD5-dennis dung >
    --
    Support your local Search and Rescue unit -- get lost.


  19. Re: Will IE6 under Wine get infected?

    John F. Morse wrote:
    > Stating Windows is "the" default is misrepresenting the real world, and
    > displaying your narrow experiences.


    No, stating Windows is the default is merely misusing "default."
    Windows is by far the majority's choice, though many of them
    are beginning to wise up.

    --
    Wes Groleau

    Translation of "Hiking in the Chisos Mountains"
    http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=474

  20. Re: Will IE6 under Wine get infected?

    On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:51:03 -0700, Bill Baka wrote:
    >>

    >Unfortunately windows is the business default and there are many
    >programs that exist in windows but not Linux.
    >I don't like it but that is the reality.


    Windows is only the default in the same way that ****ting into a diaper is the
    default.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 LastLast