Shuxclams
Diamond Member
- Oct 10, 1999
- 9,286
- 15
- 81
"A high-volume system like (Windows) that has been thoroughly tested will be by far the most secure," Bill Gates- January 27, 2004
SHUX
"A high-volume system like (Windows) that has been thoroughly tested will be by far the most secure," Bill Gates- January 27, 2004
Originally posted by: Shuxclams
"A high-volume system like (Windows) that has been thoroughly tested will be by far the most secure," Bill Gates- January 27, 2004
Originally posted by: Jzero
Originally posted by: Shuxclams
"A high-volume system like (Windows) that has been thoroughly tested will be by far the most secure," Bill Gates- January 27, 2004
The virus only takes advantage of one primary security flaw - THE USER! The virus targets Win32 because that's the biggest "market." Do you realize that if BSD were the "everyday" operating system, this would still happen becuase all the idiot users would be using it?
Are you really that clueless? While some viruses actually do take advantage of imperfections in the operating system, the two viruses that went bonkers today rely solely on foolish users who will execute any file that comes to them. It does not matter what MUA you use. Outlook? Outlook Express? Pegasus? Eudora? Makes no difference. People will open the attachment.Stupid sheep.
I guess this explains how I'm getting "mail undeliverable" messages about mail I supposedly sent from my Bigfoot account (which is obviously impossible).Originally posted by: Jzero
Originally posted by: Sukhoi
I believe you on the forgery stuff. But one of them was from wviz.org, which is in Cleveland, where I'm from. How did the virus know to forge with that address? AFAIK I've never e-mailed WVIZ from the e-mail address I got the virus at. I only use that address for school stuff.
It's getting the addresses from the victim's address book. The person who is infected has both your address and the from address in his address book.
Originally posted by: Ken_g6
I guess this explains how I'm getting "mail undeliverable" messages about mail I supposedly sent from my Bigfoot account (which is obviously impossible).Originally posted by: Jzero
Originally posted by: Sukhoi
I believe you on the forgery stuff. But one of them was from wviz.org, which is in Cleveland, where I'm from. How did the virus know to forge with that address? AFAIK I've never e-mailed WVIZ from the e-mail address I got the virus at. I only use that address for school stuff.
It's getting the addresses from the victim's address book. The person who is infected has both your address and the from address in his address book.
Originally posted by: JackBurton
I had someone call up and said they opened the zip. I asked, did you run the file inside? They said yes. As a matter of fact, they kept double clicking it because the text file kept trying to load a "screen saver," but they could never read the "text" file. Mind you, THEY KEPT TRYING TO RUN THE FILE! Jesus tap dancing Christ! :|
Originally posted by: bob4432
Originally posted by: JackBurton
I had someone call up and said they opened the zip. I asked, did you run the file inside? They said yes. As a matter of fact, they kept double clicking it because the text file kept trying to load a "screen saver," but they could never read the "text" file. Mind you, THEY KEPT TRYING TO RUN THE FILE! Jesus tap dancing Christ! :|
sorry, but this entry made me laugh so hard i almost p!$$Ed myself..... i can just picture some person at their computer.......haha.....sorry for thinking it is funny though
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Originally posted by: bob4432
Originally posted by: JackBurton
I had someone call up and said they opened the zip. I asked, did you run the file inside? They said yes. As a matter of fact, they kept double clicking it because the text file kept trying to load a "screen saver," but they could never read the "text" file. Mind you, THEY KEPT TRYING TO RUN THE FILE! Jesus tap dancing Christ! :|
sorry, but this entry made me laugh so hard i almost p!$$Ed myself..... i can just picture some person at their computer.......haha.....sorry for thinking it is funny though
Why is it the end user's fault that Microsoft and/or other computer programmers/scientists can't design an operating system that doesn't allow executable code to be disguised as something it isn't ?
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"You're misplacing the blame. Why can't users use the slightest bit of caution?"
I don't think so. Why does Windows need 45 different kinds of executable file extensions? Why not just one ?
If you are referring to the .scr file extension, suffice it to say that .scr was supposed to be short for "script." Unfortunately, the original DOS didn't allow for descriptive tags of more than 3 characters, so certain extensions became overloaded. You actually CAN blame Microsoft for that - Unix never had such a restriction.Why does a screen saver need to be executable ?
Not at all. The modern OS (think XP or Panther) was designed very much with the user in mind and to be "idiot proof." But as close as they come, perfection is unattainable. Users EXPECT to be able to double-click a file and have the operating system know what to do with it. Can you come up with a better way to handle this? If so, please contact ACM's SigCHI - I'm sure there are a bunch of professionals and researchers who would be all ears.The problem is operating systems are designed by programmers who are focused on doing lots of stuff they think is cool, not stuff that makes an operating system work well for it's basic function and is safe for non-experts to use.
Who would manage such a validation? Who would pay for it?A person is not an idiot because they don't know that their computer's operating system is too stupidly designed to not run certain operations without some kind of validation that the code comes from an authorized source.
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Jzero-
Your points are valid if computers were only meant for computer experts. The truth is most people and/or employees are using computers as a tool to accomplish something, not to become computer experts.
From a hypothetical non-computer expert's perspective, a computer should be smart enough to know that a file is what says it is, or if it doesn't know what a file is, not to run it and kill itself.
This shouldn't be too hard to accomplish, but it isn't what programmers like to do.
They'd rather build things like Media player 9, which browse the internet every time I want to hear a *.wav file, or an auto-fill feature in IE to complete web pages I'm typing in the address bar, that accesses my Diablo 2 CD, everytime, looking for matches !![]()
