From: Peter on
In article <Xns9D4614511B840HHI2948AJD832(a)69.16.185.250>,
bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com says...
> Char Jackson <none(a)none.invalid> wrote in
> news:blplq5ts2lqpj3mvsr0vbem5eqhed51uc8(a)4ax.com:
>
> > I'll take your word for it since I don't know where you'd like me to
> > "look it up!". All I can say is that I have *never* seen an XP system
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP
>
> And I quote: "
> Product key testing
>
> In addition to activation, Windows XP service packs will refuse to
> install on Windows XP systems with product keys known to be widely used
> in unauthorized installations.
>
> Like I said in my previous response to you, I've been in the PC field for
> a very long time. I was A+ certified when it was still a "cool" thing to
> waste money on.
>
> I used wikipedia for the first link convenience only. You can find the
> same information on the laborinth of MS website. They're proud of that ..
> ehh, feature actually.
>

Please provide a link other than Wikipedia. I've searched for this
activation issue with sp3 and can only find the Wikipedia link. Can't
find any mention of it on Microsoft Support or anywhere else. As Char
Jackson stated, updates are still allowed even if WGA fails and this is
the first I've heard of service packs not being allowed.

--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email
From: Peter on
In article <hoefju$fc1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org says...
> "Peter" <pete.ivesAll_stRESS(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:MPG.26140e0554097fa59899a4(a)news.virginmedia.com...
> > In article <0e0f17c7-572c-4f3f-a85c-
> > 7a42a361cf89(a)d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, rex.ballard(a)gmail.com
> > says...
> >> On Mar 23, 3:51 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Seriously, has anybody seen--or even heard--of a serious virus
> >> > (including rootkit or malware) problem in Windows when using
> >> > commercial antivirus protection?
> >>
>
> > Even then you can remove
> > the HD and scan it from another machine to see if it is actually a
> > virus
> > prevent startup or some other problem. If you can get into the O/S
> > you
> > can get rid of any virus. Period.
>
> Unless the suspect computer's hardware (firmware) is suspect, there is
> no need (and complications can arise from hosting two versions of NTFS
> on a system).
>

Of course I wouldn't be trying to boot the virus infected O/S in another
machine. I would just be wanting to get access to the HD.

> > Virii have a source. A point of origin when the computer starts.
>
> Virii is the wrong term, and viruses can start when one of their hosts
> is invoked.
>
> > Eliminate the start point or points from running and the virus becomes
> > dormant and you can then remove it without it putting itself back on
> > your system.
>
> Yes, it can be a waste of time trying to fight an active malware
> infestation. Stop the process(es) - then remove the files and reverse
> the data changes. In a sense, the difference between a worm and a virus
> is that the worm instantiates its replicant. The virus *might* execute,
> but the worm *will* execute. My point being that the virus need not make
> any provision for its replicant to be executed in turn (no startup
> mechanism other than the chance a host will be invoked).
>
>
That last line doesn't seem clear. You seem to be saying that a virus
can run without requiring any means to get it started other than the
host machine starting up. How can that be? Of course I'm aware of new
XP machines with no updates or service packs and open connections to the
internet getting infected within minutes/hours, but how does a machine
become infected if it's completely cut off and there is no obvious
connection to the virus to get it started? Despite the fact the virus
file(s) may well still be on the machine, but not yet located.

--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email
From: FromTheRafters on
"Peter" <pete.ivesAll_stRESS(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.261563dffec546a19899a8(a)news.virginmedia.com...

>> Unless the suspect computer's hardware (firmware) is suspect, there
>> is
>> no need (and complications can arise from hosting two versions of
>> NTFS
>> on a system).
>>
>
> Of course I wouldn't be trying to boot the virus infected O/S in
> another
> machine. I would just be wanting to get access to the HD.

When the host machine sees the NTFS volume, it may revise it. Bringing
it back to its home system may create version soup problems where the
file system is a "newer" revision than the current OS supports.

[...]

>> Yes, it can be a waste of time trying to fight an active malware
>> infestation. Stop the process(es) - then remove the files and reverse
>> the data changes. In a sense, the difference between a worm and a
>> virus
>> is that the worm instantiates its replicant. The virus *might*
>> execute,
>> but the worm *will* execute. My point being that the virus need not
>> make
>> any provision for its replicant to be executed in turn (no startup
>> mechanism other than the chance a host will be invoked).
>>
>>
> That last line doesn't seem clear. You seem to be saying that a virus
> can run without requiring any means to get it started other than the
> host machine starting up.

No, viruses (in this vein) are hosted by "programs" not "machines". You
can start the machine, look at all known start methods (run keys, BHOs,
etc...), find no suspicious processes running. No active malware at all
(full scan by antimalware also finds no inactive malware). Yet, when
(for instance) an "infected" text editor is invoked, the virus becomes
resident.
,
> How can that be? Of course I'm aware of new
> XP machines with no updates or service packs and open connections to
> the
> internet getting infected within minutes/hours, but how does a machine
> become infected if it's completely cut off and there is no obvious
> connection to the virus to get it started? Despite the fact the virus
> file(s) may well still be on the machine, but not yet located.

If self-replicating malware doesn't use a host "program", it will
probably have another way to start. These types are commonly termed
"worms".

A virus can hide in a program that you use every time you fire up the
computer, or in a program that you only use once in a blue moon. Viruses
don't "care" whether they run or not - they might not be interested in
anything (data, computing power, serving you advertisements) they may
just sit there until you fire up your tax program for the 2013 tax
season and activate a payload if the date is after dec 21st 2012.

(I do expect a rash of malware to have trigger dates in line with the
ending of the Mayan calendar)

People are so used to having malware that wants to *use* their computing
power that they forget that malware can also just be interested in
spoiling your day by ending their computing power - like the old days.


From: Dustin Cook on
RayLopez99 <raylopez88(a)gmail.com> wrote in
news:eb771ce1-6150-4198-9764-12322f641777(a)g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 25, 7:53�am, Dustin Cook <bughunter.dus...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Like I said in my previous response to you, I've been in the PC field
>> for a very long time. I was A+ certified when it was still a "cool"
>> thing to waste money on.
>
> Just curious, but what is your hourly rate or do you get paid by the
> job?

I charge by the job. This allows me to be competitive with everyone else
and not overcharge people who really can't afford the repairs but need them
done anyhow.

> And I'm sure you would be a perfect witness on the stand if I were
> trying to prove that it's not Windows but the user who is at fault in
> nearly any security breach. SAVE for Zero-Day attacks, which cannot

In many cases, it's the user yes.



--
"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge
this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior

From: Dustin Cook on
Peter <pete.ivesAll_stRESS(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:MPG.26155e43d8d9c8ab9899a7(a)news.virginmedia.com:

> In article <Xns9D4614511B840HHI2948AJD832(a)69.16.185.250>,
> bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com says...
>> Char Jackson <none(a)none.invalid> wrote in
>> news:blplq5ts2lqpj3mvsr0vbem5eqhed51uc8(a)4ax.com:
>>
>> > I'll take your word for it since I don't know where you'd like me
>> > to "look it up!". All I can say is that I have *never* seen an XP
>> > system
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP
>>
>> And I quote: "
>> Product key testing
>>
>> In addition to activation, Windows XP service packs will refuse to
>> install on Windows XP systems with product keys known to be widely
>> used in unauthorized installations.
>>
>> Like I said in my previous response to you, I've been in the PC field
>> for a very long time. I was A+ certified when it was still a "cool"
>> thing to waste money on.
>>
>> I used wikipedia for the first link convenience only. You can find
>> the same information on the laborinth of MS website. They're proud of
>> that .. ehh, feature actually.
>>
>
> Please provide a link other than Wikipedia. I've searched for this
> activation issue with sp3 and can only find the Wikipedia link. Can't
> find any mention of it on Microsoft Support or anywhere else. As Char
> Jackson stated, updates are still allowed even if WGA fails and this
> is the first I've heard of service packs not being allowed.

*sigh*. This is really easy, I've provided a primary google link; and
then I followed it up with the wikipedia link. I went so far as to
provide the first 5 characters of the infamous blacklisted key. I can do
no more homework for you or anyone else.

If you or anyone else here honestly didn't know about this problem, you
do now. If you still think it's untrue, go fetch the key FCKGW change one
of the VLK machines to this key and try loading a service pack... :)


--
"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge
this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior