whats the best virus protection

[Kenneth]

I'd like to know "why?" As an act of revenge? If someone tries, or
demonstrates a willingness, to steal from you, what is wrong with beating
them at they're own game? What's wrong with stealing from a guilty party?

Shane

In brief:

We then become what we despise...

All the best,

 

[kurt wismer]

Kurt you haven't changed a bit have you?

there hasn't been a need...

though you might want to change how you compose your articles so that
quoted material appears *BEFORE* the sig delimiter so that sane news
clients that automatically trim signatures when quoting don't trim what
you've quoted...

also, you might want to stop endorsing the concept of set-and-forget
security since it is a pipe dream that will not come true until
significant advances are made in the field of artificial intelligence...
good security requires informed and intelligent decision making and
that's something that cannot yet be programmed into software...

 

[Charlie]

Thank you Kurt for sharing your opinions.

--

Charlie

 

[Shane]

In brief:

We then become what we despise...

OK, a noble evaluation of it, however I don't believe you become what you
despise until you do it for the same, despised, reason - though some might
find they like easy profitting and so allow it to corrupt them.


Shane

 

[Kenneth]

OK, a noble evaluation of it, however I don't believe you become what you
despise until you do it for the same, despised, reason - though some might
find they like easy profitting and so allow it to corrupt them.


Shane

Hi again,

So, apparently, for you the notion of "revenge" is an
appropriate motivation.

Not for me.

All the best,

 

[Shane]

Hi again,


Hi!

So, apparently, for you the notion of "revenge" is an
appropriate motivation.

Call it *combat*. Pretty-much how the Law sees it when they confiscate
property - hit the enemy where it hurts.

Like they say, revenge is best served cold - but maybe it is no longer
'revenge' anyway, at this point. What is it when it's so calculated?

I'll tell you what I think. I think it's dreadful that the US seems so
relaxed with the notion that courts are there to impose revenge rather than
Justice. I think Law *has* to be based on the kind of higher reasoning you
appear to be arguing for, and if that reasoning appears a current
impracticality, no matter, Law still has to teach the Human Race abstract
concepts, philosophy etc, not maintain the bestial nature we've mostly
demonstrated to date. We're supposed to discover and overcome injustice, not
take the view that, in our time, the Law has reached perfection, and
doubters can be burned at the stake!

But, we must remain 'human'. If someone assaulted, say, my sister, I will go
ofter them. Many agree with me in this - many agreed that Tony Martin was a
hero for shooting a teenage burglar at his home, though I do not. You choose
to break the Law, you accept the punishment. It cannot be that a member of
my family gets hurt and I leave it to the Law to *maybe* catch the
perpetrator, *maybe* punish them sufficiently. We are not merely words in
the State ledger.

It is wrong to seek a stranger and cause them pain. It is not wrong to seek
the attacker of a member of your family and cause *them* pain.

It *is* against the Law, and a good Law at that. But Law isn't meant
ultimately to enslave us. And stealing from big business thieves is - to
some - just a bit of fun.


Shane

 

[Kenneth]

And stealing from big business thieves is - to
some - just a bit of fun.

Hello again,

Indeed, that is true.

I call those folks "happy thieves."

All the best,

 

[Shane]

And stealing from big business thieves is - to

Hello again,

Indeed, that is true.

I call those folks "happy thieves."

Hahaha!


Take care mate!

Shane

 

[Art]

I'll tell you what I think. I think it's dreadful that the US seems so
relaxed with the notion that courts are there to impose revenge rather than
Justice. I think Law *has* to be based on the kind of higher reasoning you
appear to be arguing for

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

, and if that reasoning appears a current
impracticality, no matter, Law still has to teach the Human Race abstract
concepts, philosophy etc, not maintain the bestial nature we've mostly
demonstrated to date.

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.

We're supposed to discover and overcome injustice, not
take the view that, in our time, the Law has reached perfection, and
doubters can be burned at the stake!

Only a undeducated fool believes in "perfect" laws.

But, we must remain 'human'. If someone assaulted, say, my sister, I will go
ofter them.

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

Many agree with me in this - many agreed that Tony Martin was a
hero for shooting a teenage burglar at his home, though I do not. You choose
to break the Law, you accept the punishment. It cannot be that a member of
my family gets hurt and I leave it to the Law to *maybe* catch the
perpetrator, *maybe* punish them sufficiently. We are not merely words in
the State ledger.

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.

It is wrong to seek a stranger and cause them pain. It is not wrong to seek
the attacker of a member of your family and cause *them* pain.

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

It *is* against the Law, and a good Law at that. But Law isn't meant
ultimately to enslave us. And stealing from big business thieves is - to
some - just a bit of fun.

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

Art

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

 

[Martin Spencer-Ford]

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

Art

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

Have i got this wrong, are not those memebers of the US public with the
knowhow allowed to mount such tactics as DOS against a party that is
attacking their net/system?

We in the UK on the other hand have to wait for intrusion, present evidence
and then hope at best to have them prosecuted for such minor things as
"theft of electricity" or "theft of cpu time" along with any other theft of
data that may occour.

Personally, I beleive that their are times when a swift retalatory probe can
be helpful, but on no occaision would I promote the damaging of a system or
network and certainly no theft.

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

Just my 2cents, nothing personal

Martin Spencer-Ford
(TpwUK)

 

[Art]

Have i got this wrong, are not those memebers of the US public with the
knowhow allowed to mount such tactics as DOS against a party that is
attacking their net/system?

Where did you read that?

We in the UK on the other hand have to wait for intrusion, present evidence
and then hope at best to have them prosecuted for such minor things as
"theft of electricity" or "theft of cpu time" along with any other theft of
data that may occour.

Personally, I beleive that their are times when a swift retalatory probe can
be helpful, but on no occaision would I promote the damaging of a system or
network and certainly no theft.

Neither would I.

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

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.

Art

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

 

[Martin Spencer-Ford]

Where did you read that?

I cant remember the exact article, too many read inbetween times, but if my
memory serves me right, the luvly guys that enforce copyrights, haven't they
now been given the go ahead to lauch DOS attacks against those that offer
infringeable material to the masses, and that do not conform with *US* laws,
not that I agree with piracy in any form, but i do agree with the prevention
of theft. Prevention has always come higher than cure.

Neither would I

The above comment is somewhat ambigious, i should have extended it to say
that a retalatory action such as DOS, or taking advantage of known exploits
to shut the offending system down is in my own view legitimate, but only if
done in such a way that would not make you the aggressor, i.e. you are seen
as defending your own property using means that are not harmfull, or that
were not intended to be so..

I personally don't view it as necessarily "barbaric" since there are
extreme cases where the death penalty is far too kind and lenient.

There are many countries around the globe that offer the death penalty, and
in those places, there is one thing that can be said ... whilst it reduces
*serious crime*, there is no removal of it, and in some of those said
countries, you see that the death penality is handed out in a hap hazzard
fassion in order to keep the publics lust for such events happy.

OTOH, I wouldn't have the stomach for the executioner's job, so I'm
not in favor of it.

Good, pleased to hear it. I know i wouldnt be able to do it, i worked in a
slaughter house once for 16 weeks, i didnt eat meat for 16 years thereafter.

 

[kurt wismer]

Martin Spencer-Ford wrote:
[snip]

I cant remember the exact article, too many read inbetween times, but if my
memory serves me right, the luvly guys that enforce copyrights, haven't they
now been given the go ahead to lauch DOS attacks against those that offer
infringeable material to the masses, and that do not conform with *US* laws,

not to the best of my knowledge... there were certainly people pushing
to give the content industry the legal power to attack infringers
(DoS'ing them was one of the lighter forms of attack i read discussed)
however i have not heard anything about them being given the go-ahead -
and i follow enough IP related feeds that i'm pretty sure i would have
heard about such legislation if it had been put into affect... that
would have been *big* news...

for the time being the only thing the content industry can DoS is the
courts with their hundreds of lawsuits at a time (which they wouldn't
really be bothering with if they could DoS people)... there are rumors
that they are also behind certain activities that would fall under the
heading of 'poisoning the well' but that's not the same as a DoS...

 

[Martin Spencer-Ford]

Martin Spencer-Ford wrote:
[snip]

I cant remember the exact article, too many read inbetween times, but if
my memory serves me right, the luvly guys that enforce copyrights,
haven't they now been given the go ahead to lauch DOS attacks against
those that offer infringeable material to the masses, and that do not
conform with *US* laws,

not to the best of my knowledge... there were certainly people pushing to
give the content industry the legal power to attack infringers (DoS'ing
them was one of the lighter forms of attack i read discussed) however i
have not heard anything about them being given the go-ahead - and i follow
enough IP related feeds that i'm pretty sure i would have heard about such
legislation if it had been put into affect... that would have been *big*
news...

[quote from "Steal This File Sharing Book - What They Wont Tell You About
File Sharing (ISBN:159327050x)]

Technically, many of these methods, such as deleting files from an offender's
computer or launching a denial-of-service attack on a blatant file sharing
computer, are illegal. To fix this minor problem of legality, the recording
industry's latest attempt has been to pass a law allowing copyright holders
to hack into copyright infringers' computers and disable, block, or
interfere with their activities, provided the damage doesn't exceed a
certain monetary amount, such as $50, although the specific method of
hacking a copyright violator isn't defined. One draft of this potential law,
called the Berman Copyright Bill, can be viewed at Declan McCullagh's
Politech website

[/quote]

Note the words *to pass*
The link to the above document

http://www.politechbot.com/docs/berman.coble.p2p.final.072502.pdf

for the time being the only thing the content industry can DoS is the
courts with their hundreds of lawsuits at a time (which they wouldn't
really be bothering with if they could DoS people)... there are rumors
that they are also behind certain activities that would fall under the
heading of 'poisoning the well' but that's not the same as a DoS...

Ouch!!, but yes the use of 'cuckoo eggs' has become a more prevailing form
of disruption, but can lead to reprecutions as found out by Madonna.

--
"they threw a rope around yer neck to watch you dance the jig of death
then left ya for the starvin' crows, hoverin' like hungry whores
one flew down plucked out yer eye, the other he had in his sights
ya snarled at him, said leave me be - i need the bugger so i can see"

But to keep the topic on thread a little ...

KasperSky for online scanning
Bitdefender Internet Suite 9 - slightly bloated but with
adware/spam/virus/parental controls and a firewall it offers supurb value
for money (AVG RIP)

All the best
Martin Spencer-Ford
(TpwUK)

 

[kurt wismer]

Martin Spencer-Ford wrote:
[snip]

I cant remember the exact article, too many read inbetween times, but if
my memory serves me right, the luvly guys that enforce copyrights,
haven't they now been given the go ahead to lauch DOS attacks against
those that offer infringeable material to the masses, and that do not
conform with *US* laws,

not to the best of my knowledge... there were certainly people pushing to
give the content industry the legal power to attack infringers (DoS'ing
them was one of the lighter forms of attack i read discussed) however i
have not heard anything about them being given the go-ahead - and i follow
enough IP related feeds that i'm pretty sure i would have heard about such
legislation if it had been put into affect... that would have been *big*
news...

[quote from "Steal This File Sharing Book - What They Wont Tell You About
File Sharing (ISBN:159327050x)]

Technically, many of these methods, such as deleting files from an offender's
computer or launching a denial-of-service attack on a blatant file sharing
computer, are illegal. To fix this minor problem of legality, the recording
industry's latest attempt has been to pass a law allowing copyright holders
to hack into copyright infringers' computers and disable, block, or
interfere with their activities, provided the damage doesn't exceed a
certain monetary amount, such as $50, although the specific method of
hacking a copyright violator isn't defined. One draft of this potential law,
called the Berman Copyright Bill, can be viewed at Declan McCullagh's
Politech website

Note the words *to pass*[/QUOTE]

note the words "potential law"...

as in, 'its not a real law yet'...

as in, they haven't been given the go ahead yet... i know they're
working on it, but it isn't yet in effect and it may never come into
effect...

 

[Martin Spencer-Ford]

Martin Spencer-Ford wrote:
[snip]

I cant remember the exact article, too many read inbetween times, but if
my memory serves me right, the luvly guys that enforce copyrights,
haven't they now been given the go ahead to lauch DOS attacks against
those that offer infringeable material to the masses, and that do not
conform with *US* laws,

not to the best of my knowledge... there were certainly people pushing to
give the content industry the legal power to attack infringers (DoS'ing
them was one of the lighter forms of attack i read discussed) however i
have not heard anything about them being given the go-ahead - and i
follow enough IP related feeds that i'm pretty sure i would have heard
about such legislation if it had been put into affect... that would have
been *big* news...

[quote from "Steal This File Sharing Book - What They Wont Tell You About
File Sharing (ISBN:159327050x)]

Technically, many of these methods, such as deleting files from an
offender's computer or launching a denial-of-service attack on a blatant
file sharing computer, are illegal. To fix this minor problem of
legality, the recording industry's latest attempt has been to pass a law
allowing copyright holders to hack into copyright infringers' computers
and disable, block, or interfere with their activities, provided the
damage doesn't exceed a certain monetary amount, such as $50, although
the specific method of hacking a copyright violator isn't defined. One
draft of this potential law, called the Berman Copyright Bill, can be
viewed at Declan McCullagh's Politech website

Note the words *to pass*

note the words "potential law"...

as in, 'its not a real law yet'...

as in, they haven't been given the go ahead yet... i know they're working
on it, but it isn't yet in effect and it may never come into effect...
[/QUOTE]

So does this mean we can aggree on something along the lines of;
the above mentioned policy has been granted the go ahead, but the finer
points have yet to be ironed out and aggreed upon?

It just sounds somewhat strange that a law can be passed but then turn into
a potential. Not that it effects me directly, well i suppose it does, the
snippet from the book springs to mind ..... :-/

 

[kurt wismer]

Martin Spencer-Ford wrote:
[snip]


I cant remember the exact article, too many read inbetween times, but if
my memory serves me right, the luvly guys that enforce copyrights,
haven't they now been given the go ahead to lauch DOS attacks against
those that offer infringeable material to the masses, and that do not
conform with *US* laws,

not to the best of my knowledge... there were certainly people pushing to
give the content industry the legal power to attack infringers (DoS'ing
them was one of the lighter forms of attack i read discussed) however i
have not heard anything about them being given the go-ahead - and i
follow enough IP related feeds that i'm pretty sure i would have heard
about such legislation if it had been put into affect... that would have
been *big* news...

[quote from "Steal This File Sharing Book - What They Wont Tell You About
File Sharing (ISBN:159327050x)]

Technically, many of these methods, such as deleting files from an
offender's computer or launching a denial-of-service attack on a blatant
file sharing computer, are illegal. To fix this minor problem of
legality, the recording industry's latest attempt has been to pass a law
allowing copyright holders to hack into copyright infringers' computers
and disable, block, or interfere with their activities, provided the
damage doesn't exceed a certain monetary amount, such as $50, although
the specific method of hacking a copyright violator isn't defined. One
draft of this potential law, called the Berman Copyright Bill, can be
viewed at Declan McCullagh's Politech website

Note the words *to pass*

note the words "potential law"...

as in, 'its not a real law yet'...

as in, they haven't been given the go ahead yet... i know they're working
on it, but it isn't yet in effect and it may never come into effect...

So does this mean we can aggree on something along the lines of;
the above mentioned policy has been granted the go ahead, but the finer
points have yet to be ironed out and aggreed upon?

It just sounds somewhat strange that a law can be passed but then turn into
a potential. Not that it effects me directly, well i suppose it does, the
snippet from the book springs to mind ..... :-/[/QUOTE]

i think you need to re-read what you quoted... "the recording industry's
latest *attempt* has been to pass a law"... i know it's a little
ambiguous (blame that on the original author), but the proper
interpretation is that they are attempting to pass a law, not that it
has already been _passed_...

 

[4Q]

The best protection is knowledge. Back up your data on removeable
media and keep it away from your PC. Here's some suggestions:

http://www.claymania.com/safe-hex.html

Art

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

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

But there again, why bother, what's the harm in a few harmless
virus and worms enjoying your PC's hospitality. Let'em live.


4Q (The Devil's Cyber Advocate) B.Sc (Hons), PhD B-Phil

p.s. also if you have 2Gb of RAM and a fast PC you can
load the Live-CD image into memory 'toram' option and get
almost instantanious access to applications.

 

[Martin Spencer-Ford]

i think you need to re-read what you quoted... "the recording industry's
latest *attempt* has been to pass a law"... i know it's a little ambiguous
(blame that on the original author), but the proper interpretation is that
they are attempting to pass a law, not that it has already been
_passed_...

okely dokely, thanks for clearing that up ... no i understand why its called
american(us english) on all my software now ...

hehehhehehe

Appreciated Kurt

Martin Spencer-Ford
TpwUK

<snipped>

 

[4Q]

4Q (dats me) wrote:

1) Also you don't need any Anti-Virus program (more CPU for you)

2) spelling/typos

thing is loaded from a read only CR-ROM disk into memory at

*CD-ROM... (aka CD)

plugable) stoarge device. External USB drive, Compact Flash
*storage...


almost instantanious access to applications.

*instantaneous...


Hey I wonder if I read before I post instead of after
I might cut down on the spells? Still learning great
techniques!

4Q