botnetWorks - Call for experimental botnet beta testers
in [Anti-Virus]
|
Prev: what's the best free anti-virus solution for Windows?
Next: On-line web browser vulnerability tester
From: FromTheRafters on 12 Mar 2010 17:48 "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns9D3933CB0D724HHI2948AJD832(a)69.16.185.247... > "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in > news:hmsalm$gce$1 > @news.eternal-september.org: > >> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message >> news:hmpr0601rq6(a)news3.newsguy.com... >> >>> Like there is no benevolent virus, there is no benevolent botnet. >> >> This assumes that computing power is being stolen. Otherwise a botnet >> is >> just called distributed computing. A virus is always called a virus >> whether it steals computing power or not - it is assumed that an >> infecting virus will always be malicious because it is stealing power >> at >> the very least. The definition of virus has nothing to do with >> malware, >> whereas the definition of botnet seems to be "malicious distributed >> computing network". >> >> >> > > It's not malicious for stealing cpu cycles alone. It's considered > malicious > because it makes unwanted changes to other aspects of the system, > sometimes > with dire results; and not intended by the author. *** Are you saying they (viruses) are considered malicious because they tend to be buggy? *** > Obviously this applies to viruses, and not this fellows botnet for > sale... *** I was just trying to show that the definition (Turing machine computational model) of "virus" is less like "malware" and more like "neutral" as in more like an automated copy/paste operation performed on itself. Sure, if a contemporary virus infects programs that the user doesn't want infected, it is malware (makes unwanted modifications). The term "virus" does not mean "malware" while the term "botnet" apparently does - else they would be called "distributed computing networks". So botnet will always have a negative connotation, by definition (just as Pluto will never again be a planet, by definition). ***
From: Dustin Cook on 12 Mar 2010 19:49 "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in news:hnegcr$7pt$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns9D3933CB0D724HHI2948AJD832(a)69.16.185.247... >> "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in >> news:hmsalm$gce$1 >> @news.eternal-september.org: >> >>> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message >>> news:hmpr0601rq6(a)news3.newsguy.com... >>> >>>> Like there is no benevolent virus, there is no benevolent botnet. >>> >>> This assumes that computing power is being stolen. Otherwise a >>> botnet is >>> just called distributed computing. A virus is always called a virus >>> whether it steals computing power or not - it is assumed that an >>> infecting virus will always be malicious because it is stealing >>> power at >>> the very least. The definition of virus has nothing to do with >>> malware, >>> whereas the definition of botnet seems to be "malicious distributed >>> computing network". >>> >>> >>> >> >> It's not malicious for stealing cpu cycles alone. It's considered >> malicious >> because it makes unwanted changes to other aspects of the system, >> sometimes >> with dire results; and not intended by the author. > > *** > Are you saying they (viruses) are considered malicious because they > tend to be buggy? > *** No. Not all viruses are really that buggy, many are, but not all. It's malicious because it makes unauthorized changes to a program. The changes while necessary for the viruses own survival can result in damage to the host executable or boot sector. Sometimes it's buggy code in the virus completely to blame for this, and other times it's just a bad call for the virus; it ran into an oddball executable that isn't cool with the necessary patching. A benign virus is malicious because of these unintended side effects. >> Obviously this applies to viruses, and not this fellows botnet for >> sale... > > *** > I was just trying to show that the definition (Turing machine > computational model) of "virus" is less like "malware" and more like > "neutral" as in more like an automated copy/paste operation performed > on itself. Sure, if a contemporary virus infects programs that the I've always thought of file infectors as modified file copying programs. Instead of copying source to target directly, they insert themselves in some form into the stream and wind up being one with the target. > user doesn't want infected, it is malware (makes unwanted > modifications). The term "virus" does not mean "malware" while the > term "botnet" apparently does - else they would be called "distributed > computing networks". So botnet will always have a negative > connotation, by definition (just as Pluto will never again be a > planet, by definition). *** Couldn't have said it better myself. -- "Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior
From: FromTheRafters on 13 Mar 2010 22:37 "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns9D39CA9711F65HHI2948AJD832(a)69.16.185.250... > "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in >> *** >> Are you saying they (viruses) are considered malicious because they >> tend to be buggy? >> *** > > No. Not all viruses are really that buggy, many are, but not all. It's > malicious because it makes unauthorized changes to a program. Fred Cohen's demonstration virus always asked for permission to infect. So did his theoretical "compression virus". It is not out to steal computing power to accomplish some malicious task. It is still a virus (even of the type that must "infect" by definition - to exclude diskcopy). > The > changes while necessary for the viruses own survival can result in > damage to the host executable or boot sector. Sometimes it's buggy > code > in the virus completely to blame for this, and other times it's just a > bad call for the virus; it ran into an oddball executable that isn't > cool with the necessary patching. > > A benign virus is malicious because of these unintended side effects. Any program can be buggy, it doesn't make them malicious. Why must it be for viruses? (pity the poor, much maligned, code known as a computer virus) :o) [...] > I've always thought of file infectors as modified file copying > programs. > Instead of copying source to target directly, they insert themselves > in > some form into the stream and wind up being one with the target. Like "The Fly"? :o)
From: za kAT on 14 Mar 2010 16:23 On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:37:26 -0500, FromTheRafters wrote: > "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns9D39CA9711F65HHI2948AJD832(a)69.16.185.250... >> "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in > >>> *** >>> Are you saying they (viruses) are considered malicious because they >>> tend to be buggy? >>> *** >> >> No. Not all viruses are really that buggy, many are, but not all. It's >> malicious because it makes unauthorized changes to a program. > > Fred Cohen's demonstration virus always asked for permission to infect. > So did his theoretical "compression virus". It is not out to steal > computing power to accomplish some malicious task. It is still a virus > (even of the type that must "infect" by definition - to exclude > diskcopy). > >> The >> changes while necessary for the viruses own survival can result in >> damage to the host executable or boot sector. Sometimes it's buggy >> code >> in the virus completely to blame for this, and other times it's just a >> bad call for the virus; it ran into an oddball executable that isn't >> cool with the necessary patching. >> >> A benign virus is malicious because of these unintended side effects. > > Any program can be buggy, it doesn't make them malicious. Why must it be > for viruses? > (pity the poor, much maligned, code known as a computer virus) :o) > > [...] > >> I've always thought of file infectors as modified file copying >> programs. >> Instead of copying source to target directly, they insert themselves >> in >> some form into the stream and wind up being one with the target. > > Like "The Fly"? :o) OK, so I found this and this and this here: http://androidcommunity.com/forums/members/bearbottoms-71403.html and dat there: http://moourl.com/LotsaBearBottoms Sorry, I want definitive, absolute proof that the Bear Bottoms mentioned in all those links and lives in Southern Louisiana is the Bear Bottoms who posts here and lives in Southern Louisiana. Because they post and talk alike means nothing to me. There are thousands of Bear Bottoms in Southern Louisiana, Gordon. I bet. You do all the work, I'll stay safe, head buried into the sand. Otherwise, you're a liar like Ari. Btw, don't type too fast, things fly right by me thousands a time a year. I also invoke the Secret Squirrel for things that are far too sophisticated for me to imagine much less understand. -- zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat - www.zakATsKopterChat.com
From: za kAT on 14 Mar 2010 17:39
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:23:41 -0400, za fORGER wrote: I'm dreadfully sorry about the intrusion chaps. I asked Ari for 'proof' regarding a certain statement, and now he's wet himself, and having a fit. Ces't la vie. <shrug> -- zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat - www.zakATsKopterChat.com |