whats the best virus protection

[Bart Bailey]

External USB drive, Compact Flash
card that kind of thing

I got a SanDisk multi-reader back when my first Canon was using CF cards
and it serves just as well now with the current Canon's SD cards.
You can get a gig or more in barely more space than a postage stamp.
I suggest a multi-reader because you never know what type flash chip
someone will show up with to swap files etc.

 

[Art]

Yes backup your data on removeable media, but... Don't have
an Internet facing box (PC) based on a harddisk setup. Use one
of the many Live-CD distributions, for example Knoppix. Every
thing is loaded from a read only CR-ROM disk into memory at
runtime. 1.8Gb worth of useful application (compressed into
700Mb CD). Even Microsoft have Live-CD now.

So once you have your system setup and running anything you
download off the Interweb can be later saved onto some (hot
plugable) stoarge device. External USB drive, Compact Flash
card that kind of thing. Because everything is in memory
once you reboot (or off) any malware you may pickup vanishes.
But don't leave your external storage device connected whilst
you are connected to the nasty Internet

This doesn't addresses the problem ... which is determining whether or
not your system and your downloads are malware free before backup.
Insofar as not leaving your box connected to the internet during
backup, that's silly. If you can't do that, you might as well say that
you can't be connected any time. Just make sure as best you can
to not connect your backup drive to a infected machine.

otherwise my VX
friends with come along and insert their little creations all
over your platters.

You and your creepy vx friends can keep your creepy creations
to yourselves. We don't want them.

Art

http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[4Q]

I got a SanDisk multi-reader back when my first Canon was using CF cards
and it serves just as well now with the current Canon's SD cards.
You can get a gig or more in barely more space than a postage stamp.
I suggest a multi-reader because you never know what type flash chip
someone will show up with to swap files etc.

Yes 1Gb and rising ( like 2.2Gb Microdrive in CF format).
I'v heard of 4Gb CF cards already (expensive though, initially)
I use a multi-reader myself for the many different types
of cards. My favorite is the mini-SD which is half the
size (and thickness) again of the postage stamp SD. The
trouble is one day I fear losing it on the floor and accidently
vacuuming it up, never to see my precious data (Virus collection)
again. Somehow I think Art will see this as a victory for AV!
*grin*


4Q

 

[4Q]

This doesn't addresses the problem ... which is determining whether or
not your system and your downloads are malware free before backup.

Data
====
Most my documents are text based, HTML, Graphics i.e. Data that
kind of thing. I don't use Microsoft produces much, mostly OSS Linux.

Apps
====
I look at the source code for the obvious malware and compile
into executables myself... I keep up with news on *nix software
for vulnerabilites and patch asap.

Games, Music, Video
===================
Buy it from reputable vendors... don't accept warez.

Insofar as not leaving your box connected to the internet during
backup, that's silly. If you can't do that, you might as well say that
you can't be connected any time.

No the reason for this is incase someone has installed a Trojan
or malware that would own be able to steal your stored data
once you connect to storage device while the PC is Internet
connected. After all the biggest classification of malware damage
as I seem to remember isn't deletion/corruption but ID/Data theft.
Who knows what hidden future damage can be wreaked once a criminal
knows your life inside out and owns your bank account, credit
card, utility info, friends and family... that is what Dr. Solly
used to call "unlimited damage".

Anyways it only takes a few moments to unconnect the Inet connection
boot up the storage device transfer data to device, unplug device
reconnect to the Inet. Infact you could reboot the Live-CD system
between coffee breaks and always know you started up clean.

Just make sure as best you can
to not connect your backup drive to a infected machine.

How could you ever guarantee that? You aren't omnipotent are you?
Even the AVers can't keep up with the 0day stuff so what chance
does anyone else have, so the definition of "best you can" is
pretty meaningless.

You and your creepy vx friends can keep your creepy creations
to yourselves. We don't want them.

They aren't all creepy. I know plenty of VX/Hax0rs that spent
years studying the field in order to become expert of technical
matters. Btw I just bought Kris Kaspersky's latest book
"Hacker Debugging Uncovered", easily as good as his
"Hacker Disassembling Uncovered". Now in order to have that level
of knowledge he must have done some pretty shaded in gray stuff
like our friend Guillermito. Reverse engineering, breaking ciphers,
cracking, cracking copywrite protections, studying virus mechs.

What about Dr. Mark Ludwig, he has several Virus Books out. Some
of his research got into the wild too. Btw two of his books are
available for free in PDF format. Go to Eagle Publishing website
or get them from VX heavens

http://vx.netlux.org

1) The little black book of viruses *excellent basics*
2) The big black book of viruses *more advanced and excellent*

He still sells his other books.

Art

http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

4Q

 

[4Q]

I think I know what you were getting at here. So I should add
that I have several machines. My Internet machine is a clean
stripped down data sucking machine. (sometimes uploading).

My data is transfered to my other local network. I have
a multiple redundancy backup system and I check my non-infected
files with MD5. If any of my data gets something I don't want
I have a system for analysing the problem... I don't need
an Anti-Virus product to give me a fancy name of a bug.
I guess I use "safe-hex" plus a few of my own protocols.

Absolutely no real need for AV, unless you like to
run around telling your friend you got XYZ virus too.
prevention is better than cure. Infact Rob Rosenberger
(Vmyths.com) doesn't have any AV on his system either
and he's pretty confident he's running an clean network.


4Q

 

[Art]

No the reason for this is incase someone has installed a Trojan
or malware that would own be able to steal your stored data
once you connect to storage device while the PC is Internet
connected.

After all the biggest classification of malware damage
as I seem to remember isn't deletion/corruption but ID/Data theft.
Who knows what hidden future damage can be wreaked once a criminal
knows your life inside out and owns your bank account, credit
card, utility info, friends and family... that is what Dr. Solly
used to call "unlimited damage".

Anyways it only takes a few moments to unconnect the Inet connection
boot up the storage device transfer data to device, unplug device
reconnect to the Inet. Infact you could reboot the Live-CD system
between coffee breaks and always know you started up clean.

But that defeats port activity checks that I run as a part of checking
for malware.

How could you ever guarantee that? You aren't omnipotent are you?

You can't gaurantee it, and that's the point. You do the best you can.

Even the AVers can't keep up with the 0day stuff so what chance
does anyone else have, so the definition of "best you can" is
pretty meaningless.

There are many general/generic checks that can be run. You don't
depend on av scanners alone, any more than you depend on only spyware
or adware scanners.

They aren't all creepy.

Anyone who releases malicious code is a creep. I couldn't care less
what you guys masturbate around with as long as you keep it to
yourselves.

Anyway, I use Windows and I've never taken any hits. Prevention
is really easy once you get the hang of it.

Art

http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[Art]

Absolutely no real need for AV, unless you like to
run around telling your friend you got XYZ virus too.
prevention is better than cure. Infact Rob Rosenberger
(Vmyths.com) doesn't have any AV on his system either
and he's pretty confident he's running an clean network.

Agreed. I don't use realtime av. Nor do I bother using a sw firewall
for outgoing application alerting (they are easy to bypass or defeat).
I have a external router/fw which I use for connection sharing
with my wife's PC.

Art

http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[4Q]

Anyone who releases malicious code is a creep. I couldn't care less
what you guys masturbate around with as long as you keep it to
yourselves.

<image you see a Soooge type worm-wriggling disclaimer
here about never breaking any laws, incitement etc etc>

We have a difference of opinion here. I understand why you
call someone a creep for damaging someone elses machine. But
for me I like the idea of an entity survivng in the wild
and avoiding detection. I think it's an intellectual challenge
to build an autonomous agent and devise stratergies to
stay alive... because basically that is all we are,
self-replicating survival machines constantly looking to
improve our odds of existance. (bigger picture).

I really look forward to the next generation VX. AI and
AL. I'm sorry in advance that you don't want them trespassing
on your boxes and stealing CPU/Electricity resources... But
that is what we humans are already doing in our environment.
I just hope you accept my understanding that I too don't
see the point of malicious data damage for no reasons.

</end disclaimer> *checks to see if Homeland Security
are kicking my door in* ;]]



4Q (The Devil's VX Advocate)

 

[Laura Fredericks]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Anyone who releases malicious code is a creep.

Well now THAT branding is certainly gonna stop 'em, Art! LMAO!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1

iQA/AwUBQ2gc4KRseRzHUwOaEQIMZQCfQRuXhfB69Sd7DRraFWOlKMKLuuQAn1fa
n8+LtSRY/37pPRUYNuandcTg
=unr1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Laura Fredericks
PGP key ID - DH/DSS 2048/1024: 0xC753039A

alt.comp.virus photo gallery:
http://www.queenofcyberspace.com/acvgallery/

usenet flamewars:
http://www.queenofcyberspace.com/usenet/

Remove CLOTHES to reply.

 

[Shane]

Uh, I thought US law was based on old English law.

I think what either is 'based on' is, in practice, redefined on as
potentially often as a daily basis, by political posturing, and whether it
succedes or not depends on whether the 'audience' allow it.

It isn't the responsibility of laws to teach. It's the responsibility
of parents, and to some extent school systems. In a larger sense, it's
the responsibility of all civilized persons and responsible citizens
to teach.

Yes, in an ideal world. It's like the various ideas that there should be no
laws for this, that, or at all. In reality, most people are intellectually
lazy and the *first* idea they have on how to address a social problem is
also their last, though first ideas usually overlook some terribly obvious
error that laziness has failed to spot. Even the smart make such errors if
all they want to do is get the boring stuff over with and get back to
interesting matters like who to invite to a party, who to try to shag, what
to pilfer from work, how to con the kids into doing better at school. Most
people will adjust their ideals to give them an advantage in their personal
lives, which often means 'believing the mutually exclusive' or the like.
Almost always means overlooking hypocrisy.

Only a undeducated fool believes in "perfect" laws.

But most dishonest people, most crooks (read most politicians, many lawyers)
will exclaim that such *does* exist and should be striven for. Juries are
generally chosen to eliminate members such as mathematicians, physicists and
the like because they have more accurate - though not necessarily more
'realistic' - notions of reasonable doubt etc. Prosecution want an
easily-swayed mob who'll agree with whoever best stirs up emotion,
cultivates the desire for revenge, offers the possibility of it and of
giving it a name that sounds as though it isn't really revenge they seek,
but Justice.

I say that the necessity for impartial laws was identified by the thinkers
and that most others who adopted it did so either for political expediency,
or are genuine in their belief in impartiality, just too unimaginative or
too busy to take the ideas further.

Then you're an outlaw. Methinks you've been overly influenced by Robin
Hood and other popular fairy tales rather than by sound teachings.

Yes, I would be an outlaw - that's my point. Revenge should be against the
law. As for influence - well I suppose as a kid I was influenced by the like
of Robin Hood. As a teen I was more interested by the notions of a Biker's
Code, Bushido and the Camorra. I like to think I've seen through much of the
contradictory philosophy and adapted the three to my individual code of
honour. I feel we must all develop our own, individual, code of honour. To
thine own self be true. Just do it with some learning, especially of the
nature of self-deceit.

If you wish to not waste your life rotting in jail, I suggest that you
rethink your "philosophy". Here in the US, we believe in due process
of law ... not taking the law into ones own hands.

From here - outside the US - it never looks like that. I'm sure you do, Art,
as well as a number of other intelligent and friendly Americans I've met via
these groups, but a very large number of US citizens *do* believe in taking
the law into their own hands. Strange Fruit being a rather easy example. As
for others I suggest we stay away from the political. Luckily most people of
such a venous nature are also craven and tend to obey whoever makes it look
like a bad idea not to.

But it is illegal and irresponsible. And to a civilized person, it is
morally corrupt and ignorant as well.

This is my argument - Law is, in part at least, guideline - we are animals,
not words. I find it deeply suspiscious if someone who's loved family member
has been murdered, does *not* to want to personally take revenge. At best, I
suppose, it's putting the State before family. The only way to satisfy both
is to have the Law answerable to the Lynch Mob, which is really
reprehensible.

I say that not to want revenge is a dangerous subversion of human nature.
Law is about Society. However, individuals must not subsume themselves to
Society. It's a contradiction. In the end you have to decide the issue for
yourself. If someone has to die - and State sanctioned execution is
institutionalised barbarity to my mind - then the Law-loving individual has
to decide, assuming he/she possesses the capability in the first, whether
it's worth losing one's own liberty over (not think in terms of evading
detection or apprehension) and if the answer is 'yes', do it.

Stealing is both wrong and illegal. Seems some of you Brits have some
very peculiar and barbaric views indeed.

I don't think so, Art. I think, perhaps, the definition of stealing is
possibly too loosely applied.

Or maybe put it another way: In the '80's we had the Poll Tax, a deeply
unpopular tax, imposed upon us. I remember Willy Whitelaw - a respected
Govt. minister of the time - arguing that if a Law is perceived as 'Bad', it
should nonetheless be obeyed. It will be dropped according to complaints
registered - almost certainly by the simple expedient of which party gets
most votes - at the next election. That is the legal way to protest 'Bad
Law'.

Unfortunately it's bullshit - albeit bullshit believed most sincerely, by
many genuine people. The fact is that if Bad laws are obeyed, they get
incorporated and don't get a mention at the next election. Politicians are
crooks. Laws are judged by whether they get obeyed or not by the majority.

Excuse the typing. Gets too difficult. And I like to write stuff like this
on paper first but I can't use my writing hand atm. Since last night I now
have to give myself shots (something I have never done before) too. I'm
probably less rational than I'd like to think!


Shane

 

[Shane]

As for barbaric views ... what about the death penalty?, is that not

I personally don't view it as necessarily "barbaric" since there are
extreme cases where the death penalty is far too kind and lenient.
OTOH, I wouldn't have the stomach for the executioner's job, so I'm
not in favor of it.

How can that be anything but revenge, Art? Personally I think state
executions, if justified anyway, should be carried out by military firing
squads, the point being to inure them to killing. Anyone else its corrupt
and encouraging a terrible perversion that should be treated, not exploited.

But the only pro-execution arguments are 1. that the likelihood is it's
cheaper and that, 2. the convicted may, after several years, actually prefer
death to life-without-hope (so should only be the recourse of those
convicted of cold-blooded assassination, who can never safely be considered
for release. But acceptance of the plea in the shorter term could only be
some kind of deviance or insanity and not encouraged).

You do seem to be saying that when, say, the little guy became too emotional
for objectivity, the state should also lose objectivity, so that he can get
what he wants without becoming himself a criminal.


Shane

 

[Art]

How can that be anything but revenge, Art?

Probably in bible belt States here in the U.S. a "eye for an eye"
revenge emotion underpins their simplistic approach. I can't imagine
a liberal intellectual arguing for capital punishment on such a basis
though. Such a person would tend to view it abstractly and liken
capital punishment to removing a cancer from society. Opposing
liberals would likely appeal to the emotion of compassion and offer
arguments supporting the belief that anyone can be rehabilitated.

Personally I think state
executions, if justified anyway, should be carried out by military firing
squads, the point being to inure them to killing. Anyone else its corrupt
and encouraging a terrible perversion that should be treated, not exploited.

Not a bad idea at first glance, but I think killing damages the
killer's psyche ... leaves him or her feeling like less of a human
being. Proud military personnel would also be affected under the
circumstances. Slaughtering a helpless victim isn't the best way
to train soldiers IMO. Far from it.

But the only pro-execution arguments are 1. that the likelihood is it's
cheaper and that, 2. the convicted may, after several years, actually prefer
death to life-without-hope (so should only be the recourse of those
convicted of cold-blooded assassination, who can never safely be considered
for release. But acceptance of the plea in the shorter term could only be
some kind of deviance or insanity and not encouraged).

You do seem to be saying that when, say, the little guy became too emotional
for objectivity, the state should also lose objectivity, so that he can get
what he wants without becoming himself a criminal.

I never said or implied such a thing and never would, since I'm far
from a "eye for an eye" believer. I said capital pushisment isn't
necessarily barbaric. That's quite a different thing. I'm open to the
idea that capital punishment might be the best approach in some
cases.

It so happens that I've recently watched two films where some sicko
raped and killed some guy's wife and two child daughters. There's no
torture followed by death that would ever come close to healing or
helping the poor husband ... or satisfying his sense of revenge. It
would take some really heavy convincing before I'd buy into the idea
that the sicko will ever be fit to live in society.

In such a case, I'd volunteer to give the sicko a lethal injection. It
passes my personal "would/could I be the executioner" test.

But revenge has nothing to do with it. There are some crimes that
are so despicable and horrendous that they are beyond such ordinary
emotions. You're left with only a dispassionate determination to rid
society of its cancers ... and that's all.

None of this has anything to do, though, with your strange notions
of taking the law into your own hands.

Art

http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[Shane]

As for barbaric views ... what about the death penalty?, is that not

Probably in bible belt States here in the U.S. a "eye for an eye"
revenge emotion underpins their simplistic approach. I can't imagine
a liberal intellectual arguing for capital punishment on such a basis
though. Such a person would tend to view it abstractly and liken
capital punishment to removing a cancer from society. Opposing
liberals would likely appeal to the emotion of compassion and offer
arguments supporting the belief that anyone can be rehabilitated.


Not a bad idea at first glance, but I think killing damages the
killer's psyche ... leaves him or her feeling like less of a human
being. Proud military personnel would also be affected under the
circumstances. Slaughtering a helpless victim isn't the best way
to train soldiers IMO. Far from it.

But anyone will be harmed, however it's done - except the legal sickos who
enjoy it. How can there be a better choice than soldiers whose main raison
d'etre is to kill others? If a military firing squad is required, they have
to do it.

I never said or implied such a thing and never would, since I'm far
from a "eye for an eye" believer. I said capital pushisment isn't
necessarily barbaric. That's quite a different thing. I'm open to the
idea that capital punishment might be the best approach in some
cases.

It so happens that I've recently watched two films where some sicko
raped and killed some guy's wife and two child daughters. There's no
torture followed by death that would ever come close to healing or
helping the poor husband ... or satisfying his sense of revenge. It
would take some really heavy convincing before I'd buy into the idea
that the sicko will ever be fit to live in society.

In such a case, I'd volunteer to give the sicko a lethal injection. It
passes my personal "would/could I be the executioner" test.

Okay. What I say is, for starters, real sicko stuff is, by definition,
insane. Whatever we personally feel about executing the insane, ultimately
we do not know the true cause, whether the perpetrator could help himself,
whether he understood what he was doing. Are we not really executing the
defenseless, a dishonourable thing to do like a strong young man beating up
an old lady, even if she's just stolen his money and killed his dog? At best
we do not know the answer, therefore we should try to learn it.

If you think killing the insane is justifiable, don't you end up killing all
untreatable mental patients, all legally-defined imbeciles? I mean, not to
mention homosexuals, gypsies and communists.

Only the clearly sane can be executed, it has to be a consensual act of
euthenasia by the state and will always require years to determine beyond
doubt that the convicted is sane (eg doesn't seek death as a way to
notoriety) and would genuinely prefer it to incarceration with no option of
release. Any other situation is flawed. The sicko act itself proves
insanity, or such low mental capacity as to prove immaturity.

But revenge has nothing to do with it. There are some crimes that
are so despicable and horrendous that they are beyond such ordinary
emotions. You're left with only a dispassionate determination to rid
society of its cancers ... and that's all.

But what you feel is not necessarily what someone else feels, so it becomes
not an incontrovertible fact, but your opinion. And no matter how coldly
dispassionate and logical you think you are, you're really demonstrating the
efficiency of your emotions. A woman might come to the same conclusion as
you but credit astrology. Maybe she's right but her explanation flawed, or
maybe you're both wrong, just it's easier to demonstrate in her.

None of this has anything to do, though, with your strange notions
of taking the law into your own hands.

Yeah, funny that. I don't know whether you mean it or you're pulling my leg.
I trust very few politicians and very few police officers, lawyers or
judges. I think the mindset of people who enter these professions is very
limited. A few want to help their fellow man, but most just want to tell the
rest of us what to do. Such people are rarely well-rounded individuals,
indeed are usually authoritarian hypocrites with black-and-white views in a
world of grey. They ruin people's lives for no good reason. I'll fight for
democracy, but they cheapen it.

I also believe that if you want something done properly you have to do it
yourself.


Shane

 

[Art]

If you think killing the insane is justifiable, don't you end up killing all
untreatable mental patients, all legally-defined imbeciles?

Of course not. Only hopeless and very dangerous psychopaths.

Yeah, funny that. I don't know whether you mean it or you're pulling my leg.

You flat out stated in the beginning that you do or would take the law
into your own hands.

I trust very few politicians and very few police officers, lawyers or
judges.

I think the mindset of people who enter these professions is very
limited. A few want to help their fellow man, but most just want to tell the
rest of us what to do. Such people are rarely well-rounded individuals,
indeed are usually authoritarian hypocrites with black-and-white views in a
world of grey. They ruin people's lives for no good reason. I'll fight for
democracy, but they cheapen it.

I also believe that if you want something done properly you have to do it
yourself.

See what I mean? You keep on making excuses for taking the law into
your own hands ... or that's the way it appears to me. You could clear
up the question with a simple yes or no. In any event, I'll not be
responding or continuing this off topic stuff.

Hope you're recovering from your injuries ok.

Art

http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[Shane]

Of course not. Only hopeless and very dangerous psychopaths.

But it comes down to somebody's judgement. And so many have been shown
likely in error.

You flat out stated in the beginning that you do or would take the law
into your own hands.

Okay. So you mean it. It wasn't an evasion, I never have nor ever will deny
what I said.

See what I mean? You keep on making excuses for taking the law into
your own hands ... or that's the way it appears to me. You could clear
up the question with a simple yes or no. In any event, I'll not be
responding or continuing this off topic stuff.

Excuses, Art? They're reasons. You expressed apparent disbelief that I could
be prepared to take the law into my own hands. I've given you some reasons.
I could write reams on it. I can understand why you should disagree with me,
but not why you should fail to appreciate I've given reasons. There are many
people in the world who feel approximately as I do. There are many officers
of the law who would understand. These are the kind of reasons argued about
in Philosophy classes. Sure, people end up disagreeing - hopefully
amicably - if not they don't belong in a philosophy class!

The reason I do not take the law into my own hands as a matter of course is
because I'm educated. I'm considerate enough not to do always exactly as I
want, rather than what's for the good of the nation, or humanity in general.
I have thought very deeply on matters of Law, of Civilisation.

But I'll say this to your president, our prime minister, our queen, kofi
anan, nelson mandela, the local chief of police, whoever - and you can tell
them where to look if you want: if someone hurts a member of my family, I
will hurt that someone considerably more.

I do not expect them to agree but I do expect them to understand, perhaps
even some grudging respect. If I don't get it, fine.

Hope you're recovering from your injuries ok.

Thanks, Art. Getting treatment for DVT now. Seems I almost died, though it
feels like just another day to me!


Shane