I received a warning from Google ......
in [Anti-Virus]
|
From: ~BD~ on 13 Aug 2010 15:46 Dustin wrote: > ~BD~<BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in > news:KNSdnZ_Wh89i4PnRnZ2dnUVZ8ridnZ2d(a)bt.com: > >> Dustin wrote: >>> ~BD~<BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in >>> news:35SdnQv8T-xdsvnRnZ2dnUVZ8mqdnZ2d(a)bt.com: >>> >>>> /I/ think *Dustin* is wrong. *I believe that installing an >>>> anti-virus programme on an already compromised machine is, in all >>>> probability, a futile exercise*. >>> >>> LOL, you would certainly be in the minority if you think I was >>> wrong in the advice I provided concerning malware. [....] What FTR actually said ..... "True, it could be installed and be kept from accessing certain areas by a rootkit". Do you *really* disagree with that?
From: Dustin on 13 Aug 2010 17:58 ~BD~ <BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in news:ifCdnZBsxp-fPPjRnZ2dnUVZ8vadnZ2d(a)bt.com: > Dustin wrote: >> ~BD~<BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in >> news:KNSdnZ_Wh89i4PnRnZ2dnUVZ8ridnZ2d(a)bt.com: >> >>> Dustin wrote: >>>> ~BD~<BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in >>>> news:35SdnQv8T-xdsvnRnZ2dnUVZ8mqdnZ2d(a)bt.com: >>>> >>>>> /I/ think *Dustin* is wrong. *I believe that installing an >>>>> anti-virus programme on an already compromised machine is, in >>>>> all probability, a futile exercise*. >>>> >>>> LOL, you would certainly be in the minority if you think I was >>>> wrong in the advice I provided concerning malware. > > [....] > > > What FTR actually said ..... > > "True, it could be installed and be kept from accessing certain > areas by a rootkit". A rootkit still has to play by certain hardrules; nothing can be hidden completely. Some in house developed tools for prior work with malwarebytes are likely useful in such a scenario. I didn't say I couldn't do it without any tools. I just said I wouldn't provide details. And what would be the point in doing so anyway? You wouldn't understand what I was writing about... and I'd just be providing information to anyone interested in circumventing technology rootkit style. While I don't feel it's information that they couldn't acquire on their own, I see no real point in.. well, advancing the technology ahead of schedule. > Do you *really* disagree with that? Of course not, a rootkit is nothing more than stealth; BD. However, it's not foolproof. The old addage is this: "Whatever software can do, software can undo."; That does *not* include crypto, however. Another beast entirely. To further on my post previous to you BD, Technology and the underlying principles hasn't really changed that much. Computers are faster now, sure; but they still follow the same laws if you will that the older ones did. In the DOS days, TSR software could be what you would say is a rootkit in the windows world; providing it was instructed to hide folders from dir or windows explorer *g*. -- "I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." - author unknown.
From: Dustin on 13 Aug 2010 18:08 ASCII <me2(a)privacy.net> wrote in news:4c647925.3763375(a)EDCBIC: > That's our raidieboi, Hello ASCII. I didn't check the headers BD set for the thread he's recently hijacked to hell. My bad. -- "I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." - author unknown.
From: FromTheRafters on 13 Aug 2010 18:43 "Dustin" <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns9DD3B747B5F97HHI2948AJD832(a)no... [...] > The old addage is this: "Whatever software can do, > software can undo."; That does *not* include crypto, > however. Another beast entirely. It can be sucessfully argued that it still holds even for crypto. The thing is, the length of time required to do the undoing outlasts the value of the retrieved information, so it wouldn't be worth it. In fact the time scales involved in software reversing of long keylength crypto may be greater than the age of the universe or perhaps even of its future expected lifespan (whatever that might be) but I don't see how that could ever be provable.
From: Wolf K on 13 Aug 2010 19:02
On 13/08/2010 18:43, FromTheRafters wrote: > "Dustin"<bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns9DD3B747B5F97HHI2948AJD832(a)no... > > [...] > >> The old addage is this: "Whatever software can do, >> software can undo."; That does *not* include crypto, >> however. Another beast entirely. > > It can be sucessfully argued that it still holds even for crypto. The > thing is, the length of time required to do the undoing outlasts the > value of the retrieved information, so it wouldn't be worth it. In fact > the time scales involved in software reversing of long keylength crypto > may be greater than the age of the universe or perhaps even of its > future expected lifespan (whatever that might be) but I don't see how > that could ever be provable. Read up on the relevant math. You won't be able to imagine the orders of magnitude involved, but you will be able to understand the notation. ;-) cheers, wolf k. |