sircam

So, if I don't have an email client installed, then how do I get the virus?

If I don't have an email client installed, why do I have an address book installed (Outlook format, of course)?

And being "network aware" is nothing new. Loveletter searched all attached drives (local and network) for files to overwrite.

A sense of history would be incredibly useful at times.

The macro virus crap started YEARS ago.

Then they could read your addressbook and use Outlook to remail themselves (worms?).

Now they have their own SMTP capabilities (and use your Outlook addressbook for a list of where to send themselves).

And this guy is only NOW contemplating what will be happening?

Imagine the problems if Loveletter hadn't just gone after mp3's and pictures. Imagine Loveletter taking out .doc and .xls files back then.

I am continually amazed at the "experts" in this industry that can't recall events of 2 years ago.

"I SOMETIMES BLAME MICROSOFT for these problems."

Then you are right, sometimes.

"And there are two ways of looking at this: one, that Microsoft could do more to write virus-proof software, and two, that Microsoft has caused itself to be the preferred target of the world's computer anarchists."

Hmmmmm, let's put that in real world terms, shall we?

How much land has the US lost to foreign invaders? Recently? After all, we're the biggest country around. We're pretty much despised by other nations (the ones that despise any other nation). But we're still here, fat and happy.

Security.

If you understand it, it doesn't matter how big of a target you are, you're secured.

"While no software will ever be virus-proof, Microsoft could do more to protect its customers."

And why hasn't it? After all, it has been YEARS since the macro viruses were first encountered.

"Of course, when it does more the company also angers people who don't like it that Outlook XP now blocks certain types of files considered likely to be dangerous."

BZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzttttttttttttttttttttttt!

Wrong answer. You don't block TYPES of attachments. You block any INTERACTION between said attachment and the rest of the PC.

Otherwise, we're right back to text only messaging.

Imagine all those years of innovation to get right back to a situation that was common 20 years ago.

"This brings us to the second point: That Microsoft is an attractive target because it's a big company that has, sometimes intentionally and sometimes not, angered the sorts of people who create these things."

Again, in real world (physical) terms, the US is a very attractive target. But people just don't get around to attacking us that often.

For some reason, the people would rather pick on vulnerable targets.

Once again, a MS shill attempts to claim that all software approximately equal security levels.

"Is it any wonder that Linux is much less a target than Windows? Likewise Macintosh. Seems the bad guys have a soft spot for underdog operating systems. "

You see, it isn't that these systems are more secure or easier to secure or anything. No nothing like that. Nothing about security here. We all know that Linux has just as many holes as Windows does.

It's just that the people writing the viruses are picking on Windows.

Not because the Mac platform is more secure. What was that commercial I recall from a couple of years past? Soemthing about the military choosing one brand because it was so resistant to outside attacks.

"I'VE ASKED BILL GATES............He danced around the question, but he won't be able to dance around it in the marketplace."

Again, because certain "experts" seem to believe that all OS's have the same security holes, does it really matter what Bill says? You already know that you're going to go with whatever he gives you.

After all, the only reason Linux isn't being cracked more often is because the virus writers don't want to pick on it.

"If something isn't done to solve computer terrorism, then progress could be either stopped in its tracks or allowed to proceed only down paths the perpetrators of PC mayhem find acceptable."

The easiest solution is not to be a victim. Protect your systems.

But we all know that cannot be done because all the OS's have the same security holes, etc. etc. etc.

"Long term, I am betting we will abandon the PC architecture for something more secure."

PC architecture, like the NIC's and the CPU and the video cards and hard drives? The parts that are user configurable? What do you mean by "PC architecture"?

"Someday all software and network packets will be digitally signed in such a way as to make it much easier to track all but the most devoted cybercriminal."

???

And the reason that people will accept this performance hit and the tracking overhead is?????????????

"That could also solve many online crimes and make spam a thing of the past."

"online crimes"?

Is that like my "Internet ready keyboard"?

What, pray tell, is an "online crime"? How does it differ from an "offline crime"?

"But the solution comes at the cost of privacy and some loss of personal liberty."

We've had this discussion elsewhere.

Another clueless "expert" with an "opinion" based upon nothing more than MS press releases.

Post #2,787 by andread 7/25/01 11:14:19 AM Reply	sircam from [link\|http://www.anchordesk.com\|http://www.anchordesk.com] : Magistr and SirCam both use their own SMTP engines. Rather than target systems using Microsoft Outlook e-mail software, these worms can grab e-mail addresses from an infected system and send copies of themselves whether or not an e-mail client is installed on the system. SirCam actually goes one step further by also being "network-aware." It looks for shared resources and attacks networked drives, so many people will be infected with SirCam without ever even seeing the original infected e-mail. The guy quotes others as saying the 'fun' is just beginning A
Post #2,811 by Brandioch 7/25/01 3:14:42 PM Reply	? So, if I don't have an email client installed, then how do I get the virus? If I don't have an email client installed, why do I have an address book installed (Outlook format, of course)? And being "network aware" is nothing new. Loveletter searched all attached drives (local and network) for files to overwrite. A sense of history would be incredibly useful at times. The macro virus crap started YEARS ago. Then they could read your addressbook and use Outlook to remail themselves (worms?). Now they have their own SMTP capabilities (and use your Outlook addressbook for a list of where to send themselves). And this guy is only NOW contemplating what will be happening? Imagine the problems if Loveletter hadn't just gone after mp3's and pictures. Imagine Loveletter taking out .doc and .xls files back then. I am continually amazed at the "experts" in this industry that can't recall events of 2 years ago.
Post #2,813 by Brandioch 7/25/01 3:38:31 PM Reply	Further comments on such "experts". "I SOMETIMES BLAME MICROSOFT for these problems." Then you are right, sometimes. "And there are two ways of looking at this: one, that Microsoft could do more to write virus-proof software, and two, that Microsoft has caused itself to be the preferred target of the world's computer anarchists." Hmmmmm, let's put that in real world terms, shall we? How much land has the US lost to foreign invaders? Recently? After all, we're the biggest country around. We're pretty much despised by other nations (the ones that despise any other nation). But we're still here, fat and happy. Security. If you understand it, it doesn't matter how big of a target you are, you're secured. "While no software will ever be virus-proof, Microsoft could do more to protect its customers." And why hasn't it? After all, it has been YEARS since the macro viruses were first encountered. "Of course, when it does more the company also angers people who don't like it that Outlook XP now blocks certain types of files considered likely to be dangerous." BZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzttttttttttttttttttttttt! Wrong answer. You don't block TYPES of attachments. You block any INTERACTION between said attachment and the rest of the PC. Otherwise, we're right back to text only messaging. Imagine all those years of innovation to get right back to a situation that was common 20 years ago. "This brings us to the second point: That Microsoft is an attractive target because it's a big company that has, sometimes intentionally and sometimes not, angered the sorts of people who create these things." Again, in real world (physical) terms, the US is a very attractive target. But people just don't get around to attacking us that often. For some reason, the people would rather pick on vulnerable targets. Once again, a MS shill attempts to claim that all software approximately equal security levels. "Is it any wonder that Linux is much less a target than Windows? Likewise Macintosh. Seems the bad guys have a soft spot for underdog operating systems. " You see, it isn't that these systems are more secure or easier to secure or anything. No nothing like that. Nothing about security here. We all know that Linux has just as many holes as Windows does. It's just that the people writing the viruses are picking on Windows. Not because the Mac platform is more secure. What was that commercial I recall from a couple of years past? Soemthing about the military choosing one brand because it was so resistant to outside attacks. "I'VE ASKED BILL GATES............He danced around the question, but he won't be able to dance around it in the marketplace." Again, because certain "experts" seem to believe that all OS's have the same security holes, does it really matter what Bill says? You already know that you're going to go with whatever he gives you. After all, the only reason Linux isn't being cracked more often is because the virus writers don't want to pick on it. "If something isn't done to solve computer terrorism, then progress could be either stopped in its tracks or allowed to proceed only down paths the perpetrators of PC mayhem find acceptable." The easiest solution is not to be a victim. Protect your systems. But we all know that cannot be done because all the OS's have the same security holes, etc. etc. etc. "Long term, I am betting we will abandon the PC architecture for something more secure." PC architecture, like the NIC's and the CPU and the video cards and hard drives? The parts that are user configurable? What do you mean by "PC architecture"? "Someday all software and network packets will be digitally signed in such a way as to make it much easier to track all but the most devoted cybercriminal." ??? And the reason that people will accept this performance hit and the tracking overhead is????????????? "That could also solve many online crimes and make spam a thing of the past." "online crimes"? Is that like my "Internet ready keyboard"? What, pray tell, is an "online crime"? How does it differ from an "offline crime"? "But the solution comes at the cost of privacy and some loss of personal liberty." We've had this discussion elsewhere. Another clueless "expert" with an "opinion" based upon nothing more than MS press releases.

Welcome to IWETHEY!