Infected XP computers unpatched
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Low-res icons in Dock?
Next: iPod touch won't update?
From: Pd on 19 Apr 2010 09:26 Ric <infobubble(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 18, 4:39 pm, peterd.n...(a)gmail.invalid (Pd) wrote: > > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8624560.stm> > > > > This is brilliant. "The latest updates can spot if a system is > > compromised by the Alureon rootkit and halt installation." > > > > So basically Microsoft have said it's better to have a working infected > > machine than a non-working one. After all, the Alureon virus only > > "monitors net traffic and plucks out user names, passwords and credit > > card numbers. It also gives attackers a back door into infected > > machines." > Bollocks. Absolute misunderstanding of the issue here. Bollocks. Nothing you've said below contradicts my understanding of the issue here. > Rootkit compromises PC. Rootkit (illegally) calls direct to area of > memory to execute malware. > MS patch comes along, patches *different* DLLs totally unrelated to > rootkit. Rootkit now calls to area of memory now occupied by > something else and BSODs machine. > MS can either release the patch to all, KNOWING THAT IT WILL > DEFINITELY BSOD ANY ROOTKITTED PC, or check for presence of specific > rootkit THAT WILL BSOD PC and alert to not install the patch on these > machines. What about other, legal, illegal or inadvertent patches/corruptions to the PC system? Does the patch check for those? The point is that Microsoft have modified their software to allow the rootkit malware to continue to function. Why is it their problem if applying a patch buggers up an infected PC? Because users are too stupid to differentiate where the problem is, so blame the last thing they did, i.e. install an MS patch, on the fact that their computer now doesn't work. Just like they blame websites that don't work on the website rather than their non-standards compliant MSIE browser, so all website designers have to add extra bits to allow MSIE to display their site acceptably. > MS can't do anything better than this (other than stopping a rootkit > in the first place but these are usually trojans the user installs > themselves) - portraying it as "nasty MS not patching some people's > machines" is sensationalist idiocy. Interpreting my comments as "nasty MS not patching some people's machines" is missing the point. -- Pd
From: Conor on 19 Apr 2010 11:34 On 19/04/2010 11:54, Woody wrote: >> Conor, I am sure that you have more enjoyable and fulfilling things to >> do with your precious time than this. > > Do you want to put money on that? > > One of the joys of being self employed is that you can choose what you do and when. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Woody on 19 Apr 2010 11:40 Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: > On 19/04/2010 11:54, Woody wrote: > > >> Conor, I am sure that you have more enjoyable and fulfilling things to > >> do with your precious time than this. > > > > Do you want to put money on that? > > > > > One of the joys of being self employed is that you can choose what you > do and when. And you can still work even if you have the social skills of a dung beetle. So you agree, you didn't have anything better to do with your time? -- Woody
From: zoara on 19 Apr 2010 12:26 Tim Hodgson <thnews(a)poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote: > zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > > R <me32(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > > Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I personally thnk it's the 'two men running away from a lion' > > > > situation. You > > > > don't have to run faster than the lion, you just have to run > > > > faster > > > > than the > > > > other guy. > > > > > > I like the analogy :) > > > > > > > I've always heard is as "You don't have to swim faster than the > > shark". > > I wonder which was the original, and how it was coined. > > The version I first heard wouldn't really work with sharks. It has one > man stopping to change into his running shoes as the lion/bear > approaches. The other man is bemused and asks why he's wasting time, > prompting the first to explain "I only have to run faster than you." Yeah, changing into running shoes in the middle of the ocean would be tricky. This version, and the limited Googling I have done about it, implies that the analogy started off as a joke. -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: D.M. Procida on 19 Apr 2010 12:33
Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > Conor, I am sure that you have more enjoyable and fulfilling things to > > do with your precious time than this. > > Do you want to put money on that? I would actually. It's quite easy to get sucked into unrewarding Interne controversies. After a while the controversy itself becomes the purpose, but most people have enough self-respect to realise that it's not worth their while. Daniele |