I've been using Google Groups, but it has no filters.
I'm tired of sorting out the legitimate posts from the spam.
Can anyone recommend a good (preferably free) news reader that will
work with Windows Vista?
I'm not really a bit-head, so installation needs to be close to point
and click.
Thanks, and will be seeing you...
Old Guy
Old Guy <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've been using Google Groups, but it has no filters.
>
> I'm tired of sorting out the legitimate posts from the spam.
>
> Can anyone recommend a good (preferably free) news reader that will
> work with Windows Vista?
>
> I'm not really a bit-head, so installation needs to be close to point
> and click.
>
> Thanks, and will be seeing you...
Years ago I would have said use Forte Free Agent, but it has been
discontinued. Probably your best bet is to use Thunderbird for both
usenet and mail.
Ironically, one of the first things you might want to do when you leave
Google Groups is filter out all posts from @google.com. That's where 90%
of the usenet spam is coming from these days.
Colin
On Apr 4, 7:18 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
>
> > On Apr 4, 9:03 am, "Swingman" wrote:
>
> > > ...Add to the mix the fact that sloppy coding inherent in a
> > > rush-to-market mentality (notably manifested in the infamous "buffer
> > > overruns") has been responsible for most of the known virus/malicious
> code
> > > exploits with MSFT products.
> > > ...
>
> > As a matter of curiosity, do you know if MS has begun using Code Data
> > Separation?
>
> I'm not sure I understand the question ... do you mean the OS taking
> advantage of processor functionality, like NX, to prevent stack overflows,
> or their .net/xml content management/code/data separation?
>
Yes.
Several years ago, round about when W2k came out a
person whose expertise I respect pointed out that Windows
stored data and code interspersed in memory so that an
overflow in the data could overwrite elements of a program,
or maybe even the OS. Sounds to me like he was explaining
the infamous 'buffer overflow exploits' as well as why Windows
crashed so much.
That type of problem was solved by pretty much everyone
BUT Microsoft decades earlier by segregating data and
programming in memory--Code Data Separation (CDS).
I remember CDS as a compiler option for our HP a-900
(I think it was a 900) circa 1987.
So, which of those was I talking about?
--
FF
On Apr 4, 9:38 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:97fd6877-7961-4892-bc6e-de6f8e87770b@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> ...
>
> > Abusers didn't have to crack Windows, they just used the
> > available plug-ins.
>
> Yes that is true. Path of least resistance. Take that target away and the
> tens of thousands or more people that make their living doing this now will
> look for the next easiest target.
>
While 'tens of thousands' is not as wildly incorrect as 'millions' it
is still
way of the mark. There may have been a total of a few tens of
thousands
of email spammers since the inception of the practice, but the
overwhelming
number of those were chicken boners who almost certainly lost money
by spamming. E.g. they paid for spamware and/or affiliate membership
is some internet-based pyramid scheme, made no sales and got malletted
within hours or days of sending their first spam. Almost every ISP
will
terminate the account of a spammer who isn't paying them a lot extra
(e.g. the notorius 'pink' contracts with ATT and others.) The number
making
a living off spam today are no more than two or three hundred and
never were
any more than that.
There may be fewer today than at any time in the last ten years due
in
no small measure to organized crime offering deals their competition
couldn't refuse.
--
FF
On Apr 4, 3:23 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>...
>
> You are correct Leon. So much so, that CERT came into being over a hacked
> UNIX environment - not hacked Microsoft environments. Virus', worms, trojan
> horses, etc. were all very real threats in the UNIX world. One of the
> problem with open source environments like UNIX is that it is indeed easy to
> create malicious code. Apple has already seen the attention of the hacker
> community as well. Not to the degree that Microsoft has, but for all of the
> reasons you've listed.
Yes.
But if you go back 20 some odd years ago when Unix boxes still
outnumbered machines on the internet running microsoftware, what
was the percentage of each that was compromised at any give time?
Despite the fact that the Unix machines were more lucrative targets,
having faster connections and greater bandwidth, as well as
outnumbering
Microsoft PCs, wasn't the percentage of infected PCs much, much,
higher?
It certainly jumped when Microsoft released its first OS/ email
client combination that allowed a sender to install software onto
the recipient's computer without notifying the recipient. That
upswing was pretty much entirely a product of the technical aspects
of the microsoftware and had almost nothing to do with it's
popularity.
--
FF
On Apr 3, 3:21 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Colin B." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:Kp8Jj.23981$Cj7.397@pd7urf2no...
>
> > J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Between IE and OE, I blame Microsoft for making spam and virus-writing
> > profitable. Given that roughly 90% OF ALL EMAIL TRAFFIC is now spam, and
> > that the spam is predominantly generated by the Russian mafia, I'd say
> > that Microsoft has some 'splainin' to
>
> > As for why I get distraught about it, well it's my job. I'm a Unix admin.
> > :-)
>
> > Colin
>
> Oh good gosh, if Microsoft were not so easy to hack, Apple or Unix would be
> the next "easy" target. Be glad your job is to work with a less sought
> after target. If Microsoft and it's inept abilities to curb spam were to
> disappear tomorrow your job would become a nightmare 3 or 4 weeks later.
> The next most popular OS would be the target just like Microsoft is now.
You can say that all you want but that doesn't make it so.
I'll explain again why it is not so:
It sounds like you never heard of the "Join the Crew Virus"
or Windows XP. All of the Linuxes, Unixes, and OSX are
more secure BY DESIGN. They were designed to NOT
execute code sent to a machine over the internet by
an anonymous third party. Microsoftware was DESIGNED
to execute code sent to a computer over the internet by
an anonymous third party.
"Join the Crew" was a chain letter circulated in the late
1980s or early 1990s about a supposed email virus that would
infect your computer if you opened the email. System
administrators had to keep reassuring their users that it
was NOT possible to get a virus by reading email.
Then Microsoft discovered the internet and distributed email
clients that DID make it possible to infect a computer by
merely reading email, and in some cases just by receiving
it, no need to even read it. NO OTHER OS did THAT!
They topped that with XP which required that the user
make an insecure connection over the internet to com-
plete the installation. NO OTHER OS DID THAT.
These were not the result fo the crackers getting smarter.
Microsoft put onto the market with FEATURES, not bugs,
that rendered them insecurable. Microsoft wrote operating
systems that deliberately and by design allowed other parties
to control a local computer over the internet WITHOUT the
permission or even notification of the local user.
I cannot overstress the fact that these were not bugs. They
were written to do EXACTLY what the crackers did with them,
excepting for the specifics of the malicious applications.
That is only one reason why spam proliferates.
Another reason is that ISPs with good spam control
on their own networks (AOL is one of these) play 'whack o'
mole" trying to block spam, instead of simply refusing all
internet traffic from networks that harbor spammers.
Contrary to popular belief, the ISPs that host most spammers
are known and that information is published by the likes
of SpamHaus. See the http://www.spamhaus.org top
ten spam supporting ISP list, for example.
Verizon led the list for years as a consequence of buying
spam-friendly MCI (formerly UUNET) , but has now dropped
to #6.
BTW, more than three times as many spammers are hosted
in the USA as in any other country. China is a distant
second.
--
FF
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> But if you go back 20 some odd years ago when Unix boxes still
> outnumbered machines on the internet running microsoftware, what
> was the percentage of each that was compromised at any give time?
But... I maintain that this is because the world of hacking, creating viri,
etc. had not reached the level of interest that is has today.
>
> Despite the fact that the Unix machines were more lucrative targets,
> having faster connections and greater bandwidth, as well as
> outnumbering
> Microsoft PCs, wasn't the percentage of infected PCs much, much,
> higher?
Law of large numbers. Once the phenonena became publicized, interest,
copy-cats, etc. skyrocketed and the PC was the obvious target for reasons of
(both) securitiy issues and popluation.
>
> It certainly jumped when Microsoft released its first OS/ email
> client combination that allowed a sender to install software onto
> the recipient's computer without notifying the recipient. That
> upswing was pretty much entirely a product of the technical aspects
> of the microsoftware and had almost nothing to do with it's
> popularity.
>
I believe it was due to both.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 11:38:32 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Frank Boettcher wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:58:03 GMT, "Colin B."
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Old Guy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I've been using Google Groups, but it has no filters.
>>>>
>>>> I'm tired of sorting out the legitimate posts from the spam.
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone recommend a good (preferably free) news reader that
>>>> will
>>>> work with Windows Vista?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not really a bit-head, so installation needs to be close to
>>>> point and click.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, and will be seeing you...
>>>
>>> Years ago I would have said use Forte Free Agent, but it has been
>>> discontinued.
>>
>> I'm using it as I type. Do you mean that the free version is not
>> available for new suscribers?
>>
>> It does not, however, have filters in the free version.
>
>There is no free version. It was discontinued years ago. The "Free
>Agent" that you can find occasionally is abandonware. The only
>product Forte has now is "Agent", which you can use for free as
>annoyware--the disabled features aren't hidden and every time you
>inadvertently click on one it comes up with an ad for the for-pay
>product.
Hmm, I guess what throws me off is when it comes up it clearly says
"free agent" at the top of the page. I didn't know there was a
predecessor. Was it full featured for free?
What you say about the disabled features not being hidden is accurate.
However, I've used it for a long time without them, but may consider a
change.
Frank
>
>> Probably your best bet is to use Thunderbird for both
>>> usenet and mail.
>>>
>>> Ironically, one of the first things you might want to do when you
>>> leave Google Groups is filter out all posts from @google.com.
>>> That's
>>> where 90% of the usenet spam is coming from these days.
>>>
>>> Colin
>
>--
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Use the $30 to take the family out for a nice dinner. You can even super
> size your meal with this much money.
Bill is visiting my place right now. Send me the check for $30 and I'll take
him out for dinner. He's kind of skinny so I'll only need to supersize my
meal if that's ok with you.
dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> ...
>> a living off spam today are no more than two or three hundred and
>> never were any more than that.
> ...
>
> Question I've never understood--how does anybody actually make any
> money? I can see the possibility (however remote) that somebody
> responds to the phishing, etc., but 98% of what I get is simply
> machine-generated gibberish it appears. What's up w/ that?
Most of the machine-generated crap you see is virus/bot software trying
to infect your computer and turn it into a spam zombie--some of the spam
out there is phishing (as you've seen), some is for Viagra and random
penis enlargement stuff (nearly all medical spam is actual for "herbal
viagra" or what have you, which has nothing in common with the original),
and some of the zombies are just there waiting to be called into action
to DoS a company that isn't paying protection money. Yep, vulnerable
computers are being used for big-money extortion, some of it against the
major world banks and such corporations.
Colin
On Apr 3, 1:24 pm, "Colin B." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Between IE and OE, I blame Microsoft for making spam and virus-writing
> profitable. Given that roughly 90% OF ALL EMAIL TRAFFIC is now spam, and
> that the spam is predominantly generated by the Russian mafia, I'd say
> that Microsoft has some 'splainin' to do.
>
> As for why I get distraught about it, well it's my job. I'm a Unix admin.
> :-)
>
You forgot to mention the versions of XP home that required the
user to connect to MS over the internet and without any firewall or
other protections in order to complete the installation. The
ruesult
was that many, if not most, installations of XP on home computers
with high speed internet access were compromised with zombies
use to propagate spam, viruses, and DDOS attacks during their
initial installation.
Note XP was targeted JUST because it was common. XP
was targeted because the Microsoft installation process REQUIRED
that it be left open for abuse.
Thus demonstrating Heinlein's observation that there are degrees
of incompetence or stupidity so extreme as to be indistinguishable
from malice.
--
FF
Old Guy wrote:
> I've been using Google Groups, but it has no filters.
>
> I'm tired of sorting out the legitimate posts from the spam.
>
> Can anyone recommend a good (preferably free) news reader that will
> work with Windows Vista?
>
> I'm not really a bit-head, so installation needs to be close to point
> and click.
>
> Thanks, and will be seeing you...
>
> Old Guy
Thunderbird is free.
Old Guy <[email protected]> wrote in news:7ae265af-e63d-43a0-8a31-6e447b8971ee@
13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> I've been using Google Groups, but it has no filters.
>
> I'm tired of sorting out the legitimate posts from the spam.
>
> Can anyone recommend a good (preferably free) news reader that will
> work with Windows Vista?
>
> I'm not really a bit-head, so installation needs to be close to point
> and click.
>
> Thanks, and will be seeing you...
>
> Old Guy
I like Xnews... but you don't need just a new newsreader. You need a
news provider to use with the newsreader. Your ISP may provide NNTP
access, or if they're like Wildblue they'll dump you off to Google
Groups.
Puckdropper
--
You can only do so much with caulk, cardboard, and duct tape.
To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
That's all a perfectly good justification for an anti-MS
religion/philosophy.
My desktop will be Windows-based for the foreseeable future for practical,
not philisophical reasons.
OE is still pretty decent newsreader.
-Steve
"Colin B." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Kp8Jj.23981$Cj7.397@pd7urf2no...
> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Puff Griffis wrote:
>>> Just curious whets the matter with Outlook ? Its
>>> already on your computer, It's free. It's easy and
>>> it has filters.
>>
>> Not Outlook, Outlook _Express_--different products, with no real
>> relation between them except that both are from Microsoft, both do
>> email, and both have "Outlook" in the name. You have to buy Outlook
>> and it doesn't have NNTP support without a third-party add-in. On
>> Vista, Outlook Express is no longer called that but is now "Windows
>> Mail".
>>
>> Some people give the impression that they would rather die than use
>> Outlook Express and Internet Explorer--I don't understand the mindset
>> that gets that distraught about such things, but some people do.
>
> That would be me. :-)
>
> For years, Outlook (and Outlook Express) didn't follow the various mail
> RFCs. In other words, they were clients for Windows mail, not Windows
> clients for email. Microsoft used them to try to usurp the
> platform-neutral
> nature of email.
> Also, they had such lovely "features" as auto-open attachments. Before
> Outlook came along, there were hoax emails that went around claiming,
> "DO NOT OPEN AN EMAIL MESSAGE WITH THE SUBJECT (whatever)!!! IT WILL
> DESTROY YOUR COMPUTER!!!" Those of us in computing laughed and grimmaced
> turnabout at the stupidity of such messages--that is, until Microsoft made
> such behaviour possible and even quite likely. Then add the amazing number
> of years its taken them to make a product that STILL isn't stable, and
> the fact that spam proliferation is predominantly based on Outlook/OE
> holes,
> and I have enough justification to remove it from any PC I own. (And that
> doesn't even bring up the issue of default HTML email--or just how badly
> MS generates HTML.)
>
> As for IE, similar concerns: They've aggressively added non-standard
> extensions to HTML, such that websites designed for IE don't work in a
> standards-compliant browser. Web pages that are designed for IE, aren't
> really web pages--they're Windows application documents, and have no
> business being published on port 80, which is reserved for the web.
>
> Oh yeah, then there's the fact that IE is tied directly into the kernel,
> which makes it easier to either trash or take over the user's computer.
>
> Between IE and OE, I blame Microsoft for making spam and virus-writing
> profitable. Given that roughly 90% OF ALL EMAIL TRAFFIC is now spam, and
> that the spam is predominantly generated by the Russian mafia, I'd say
> that Microsoft has some 'splainin' to do.
>
> As for why I get distraught about it, well it's my job. I'm a Unix admin.
> :-)
>
> Colin
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Apr 4, 7:18 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm not sure I understand the question ... do you mean the OS taking
>> advantage of processor functionality, like NX, to prevent stack
>> overflows, or their .net/xml content management/code/data separation?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> Several years ago, round about when W2k came out a
> person whose expertise I respect pointed out that Windows
> stored data and code interspersed in memory so that an
> overflow in the data could overwrite elements of a program,
> or maybe even the OS. Sounds to me like he was explaining
> the infamous 'buffer overflow exploits' as well as why Windows
> crashed so much.
>
> That type of problem was solved by pretty much everyone
> BUT Microsoft decades earlier by segregating data and
> programming in memory--Code Data Separation (CDS).
> I remember CDS as a compiler option for our HP a-900
> (I think it was a 900) circa 1987.
>
> So, which of those was I talking about?
>
> --
>
> FF
Some of this isn't an OS issue. It's a processor architectural issue.
The x86 processors use a von Nuemon (sp?) architecture, where both data
and instructions are transmitted on the same bus and stored in the same
memory. The PIC, for example, uses a Harvard architecture where data and
instructions are kept seperate.
There are x86 options now (like the NX bit) to try to solve some of the
problems, but it will take a LONG LONG time to get everyone switched
over. It took 10 years to get everyone switched over from the DOS-based
9x kernals to the superior NT kernal.
Oh, and don't underestimate the resourcefulness of crackers. If they
post "please send me teh codez" enough, someone's bound to do it! (Just
adding a bit of humour.) :-)
Puckdropper
--
You can only do so much with caulk, cardboard, and duct tape.
To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
On Apr 3, 11:43 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Puff Griffis wrote:
> > Just curious whets the matter with Outlook ? Its
> > already on your computer, It's free. It's easy and
> > it has filters.
>
> Not Outlook, Outlook _Express_--different products, with no real
> relation between them except that both are from Microsoft, both do
> email, and both have "Outlook" in the name. You have to buy Outlook
> and it doesn't have NNTP support without a third-party add-in. On
> Vista, Outlook Express is no longer called that but is now "Windows
> Mail".
>
> Some people give the impression that they would rather die than use
> Outlook Express and Internet Explorer--I don't understand the mindset
> that gets that distraught about such things, but some people do.
>
OE used to have a huge security hole--it would try to execute
plain text [1] in the middle of a UseNet article. After several years
MS issued a patch.
The sheer stupidity of writing software that does that, coupled
with the irresponsibility of not fixing it, is one reason why so
many people avoid it and other MS products, especially those
that access the internet.
[1] If a line of text began with the word 'BEGIN' and that word
was followed by a certain number of spaces or linefeeds (I
don't remember which), OE would try to interpret and execute
whatever followed. Unless the article was written with deliberate
malicious intent the effect was usually to just not display
the text that followed.
Now you know why so many Usenet articles used to start with
the word 'BEGIN'. Unless of course you were using OE, in
which case you now know why so many appeared to be
blank...
--
FF
On Apr 4, 1:12 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> ...
>
> >>> To put it another way, setting up an insecure Unix box takes a fair
> > ^^^^^^^^
>
> > I think you read that one backwards, Leon :-).
>
> Probably so. I have been on medication all week fighting an upper
> respitory infection transfered to me my my wife. She sent me an unsecured
> e-mail and I read it. ;~)
Next time read your email while
wearing a condom...
--
FF
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:58:03 GMT, "Colin B."
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Old Guy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I've been using Google Groups, but it has no filters.
>>
>> I'm tired of sorting out the legitimate posts from the spam.
>>
>> Can anyone recommend a good (preferably free) news reader that will
>> work with Windows Vista?
>>
>> I'm not really a bit-head, so installation needs to be close to point
>> and click.
>>
>> Thanks, and will be seeing you...
>
>Years ago I would have said use Forte Free Agent, but it has been
>discontinued.
I'm using it as I type. Do you mean that the free version is not
available for new suscribers?
It does not, however, have filters in the free version.
Probably your best bet is to use Thunderbird for both
>usenet and mail.
>
>Ironically, one of the first things you might want to do when you leave
>Google Groups is filter out all posts from @google.com. That's where 90%
>of the usenet spam is coming from these days.
>
>Colin
StephenM <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's all a perfectly good justification for an anti-MS
> religion/philosophy.
Yes, yes it is. I'm pretty comfortable with that.
> My desktop will be Windows-based for the foreseeable future for practical,
> not philisophical reasons.
Understood. My wife is an AutoCAD instructor, and AutoCAD doesn't run on
anything else. I'm fully in favour of practicality winning over philosophy
in most situations.
> OE is still pretty decent newsreader.
Well...no. It's not. All philosophical rants aside, it's just not a good
newsreader or mail client. It's slow, buggy, unstable, badly organised,
and encourages bad posting behaviour.
But that's all I'll say on the issue here. Suffice to say, I recommend
Thunderbird as a usenet client to anyone. (Even though I'm a profound
luddite, and use tin :-)
Colin
Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> writes:
> It sounds like you never heard of the "Join the Crew Virus"
> or Windows XP. All of the Linuxes, Unixes, and OSX are
> more secure BY DESIGN.
Except when you screw up. The iPhone runs as superuser, and not an
unpriviledged user. This is one reason why it was so easy to hack.
Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> writes:
There is currently a security hole in Windows 2000 and XP.
You get two attachments a *.doc and a *.mdb (or *.asd) file.
If you open the *.doc file, you get infected with a virus.
http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/security_response/weblog/2008/03/another_reason_why_microsoft_s.html
Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> writes:
> [1] If a line of text began with the word 'BEGIN' and that word
> was followed by a certain number of spaces or linefeeds (I
> don't remember which), OE would try to interpret and execute
> whatever followed.
two spaces. Actually it was an error in decoding uuencoded formated
files that normally looked like this:
begin 444 filename
but when the number was missing, it crashed, i.e.
begin filename
Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> writes:
> You forgot to mention the versions of XP home that required the
> user to connect to MS over the internet and without any firewall or
> other protections in order to complete the installation.
I had the same problem with Linux years ago. It was a new install,
and while downloading hte latest patches, it was compromised.
To be honest - both Vista and Linux systems have improved.
Some just take longer than others...
Microsoft has a big problem - with a zillion users, you can't make
people change their behavior without being flooded with complaints.
On Apr 4, 9:38 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:97fd6877-7961-4892-bc6e-de6f8e87770b@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> ...
>
>
> > No, the strong point to all of the other systems is that they
> > _have to be cracked_.
>
> And again I'll say that if Microsoft disappeared tomorrow the attention of
> the spamers would be dirrected at cracking the security on the other OS
> systems. I do not contest the fact that Microsoft created the Spammers
> paradise but having to crack the security of an OS is not going to make the
> millions of spamers go away.
>
Millions of spammers? On what planet?
80% of spam is sent by one hundred spammers. The ROKSO
list has even shrunk in recent years down to to only 112 this week
from about 200 a while back.
Spamhaus doesn't allow deep linking, but you'er welcomed
to go in the front door here http://www.spamhaus.org. Exploring
their site can be quite educational.
Of the top ten spammers, seven are Russian/Ukrainian
organized crime, dominated by former KGB personnel.
Yambo Financials, (ROKSO #9) for example. They have
been hosted by Verizon for several years, maybe even
from before the Worldcon/MCI/UUNet pruchase.
Here's their ROKSO description:
9 Yambo Financials Ukraine
Huge spamhaus tied into distribution and billing for
child, animal, and incest-porn, pirated software, and
pharmaceuticals. Run their own merchant services
(credit-card "collection" sites) set up as a fake "bank."
Currently hosted here:
SBL54087
63.81.154.248/31 verizon.com
01-May-2007 03:01 GMT Yambo Financials
Yambo botnet nameservers/webhosts (compromised systems)
Wanna bet those compromised systems are Windows PCs?
Contrary to popular belief the ISPs know who the spammers
are and where they are hosted. While it is easy for a spammer
to hide the identification of his hosting iSP from a typical
recipient,
ISPs have their system logs and people who can read them.
Just after the turn of the millenium the threat of blacklisting of
spam-friendly ISPs had been used to herd most of the ROKSO
spammers onto two ISPs, UUNET (or whatever it was then called)
and one Chinese ISP.
The stage was set to deliver a crippling blow to the worl'd
spammers.
Then the botnets, zombies, and anonymizing servers emerged
not only allowing the spammers to expand their spew, but also to
counter-attack with DDOS attacks against several blacklisters.
Microsoft made that possible. While Leon is correct, that harder
targets can be cracked, it takes more skill, time, and effort to do
so, while the time and effort to close off those security is far less
than that required to 'patch' millions of PCs.
If Microsoft had not thrown the doors to those PCs wide open
to abusers, the opportunities for abuse would have been orders
of magnitude less numerous and that abuse much more easily
curbed.
Yes, if Microsoftware had to be cracked there would have been
more attacks directed at Macs, Unix, and VMS boxes. But the
success rate of those attacks would have been much much lower
and the response to close those security holes much much
faster and more effective.
It would have been much harder for any spammer to aquire any
money, let alone for scores to steal millions.
--
FF
On Apr 4, 7:08 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Maxwell Lol wrote:
> > Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> It sounds like you never heard of the "Join the Crew Virus"
> >> or Windows XP. All of the Linuxes, Unixes, and OSX are
> >> more secure BY DESIGN.
>
> > Except when you screw up. The iPhone runs as superuser, and not
> > an
> > unpriviledged user. This is one reason why it was so easy to hack.
>
> According to McAfee (and a large number of other sources) the "Join
> the Crew Virus" was a hoax.
>
That's the point.
You can't get a virus just by reading email.
Or rather you couldn't until Microsoft began
writing email clients.
--
FF
On Apr 4, 1:25 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:04dabec2-63f9-4fdb-9ce2-c0fc22c6f057@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > You can say that all you want but that doesn't make it so.
> > I'll explain again why it is not so:
>
> > It sounds like you never heard of the "Join the Crew Virus"
> > or Windows XP. All of the Linuxes, Unixes, and OSX are
> > more secure BY DESIGN. They were designed to NOT
> > execute code sent to a machine over the internet by
> > an anonymous third party. Microsoftware was DESIGNED
> > to execute code sent to a computer over the internet by
> > an anonymous third party.
>
> Snip
>
> Well I am sure that every thing you say here is true, today. But security
> be design is going to be cracked by some one. The strong point to all the
> other systems security is that 99% of the people spamming and sending out
> viruses are concentrating on the easy target.
No, the strong point to all of the other systems is that they
_have to be cracked_.
Abusers didn't have to crack Windows, they just used the
available plug-ins.
Using Windows on the internet was like walking into a gay bar
at closing time with your pants down around your ankles.
>... To
> think that your set up is impenetrable is to be a bit naive.
False dichotomy--like 'safe' or 'unsafe' in a woodshop.
--
FF
On Apr 3, 10:39 pm, Maxwell Lol <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > You forgot to mention the versions of XP home that required the
> > user to connect to MS over the internet and without any firewall or
> > other protections in order to complete the installation.
>
> I had the same problem with Linux years ago. It was a new install,
> and while downloading hte latest patches, it was compromised.
>
Out sysadmin found out (the hard way) that a patch from HP
reset our mailserver to an open relay.
Of course the documentation from HP didn't warn about that,
it was obvious--to them.
--
FF
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
> On Apr 4, 9:03 am, "Swingman" wrote:
> >
> > ...Add to the mix the fact that sloppy coding inherent in a
> > rush-to-market mentality (notably manifested in the infamous "buffer
> > overruns") has been responsible for most of the known virus/malicious
code
> > exploits with MSFT products.
> > ...
> >
>
> As a matter of curiosity, do you know if MS has begun using Code Data
> Separation?
I'm not sure I understand the question ... do you mean the OS taking
advantage of processor functionality, like NX, to prevent stack overflows,
or their .net/xml content management/code/data separation?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:97fd6877-7961-4892-bc6e-de6f8e87770b@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> Well I am sure that every thing you say here is true, today. But
>> security
>> be design is going to be cracked by some one. The strong point to all
>> the
>> other systems security is that 99% of the people spamming and sending out
>> viruses are concentrating on the easy target.
>
>
> No, the strong point to all of the other systems is that they
> _have to be cracked_.
And again I'll say that if Microsoft disappeared tomorrow the attention of
the spamers would be dirrected at cracking the security on the other OS
systems. I do not contest the fact that Microsoft created the Spammers
paradise but having to crack the security of an OS is not going to make the
millions of spamers go away.
>
> Abusers didn't have to crack Windows, they just used the
> available plug-ins.
Yes that is true. Path of least resistance. Take that target away and the
tens of thousands or more people that make their living doing this now will
look for the next easiest target.
> Using Windows on the internet was like walking into a gay bar
> at closing time with your pants down around your ankles.
I would know nothing about that. I'll take your word on that one, BIG BOY.
;~)
>
>>... To
>> think that your set up is impenetrable is to be a bit naive.
>
> False dichotomy--like 'safe' or 'unsafe' in a woodshop.
"Colin B." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Kp8Jj.23981$Cj7.397@pd7urf2no...
> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Between IE and OE, I blame Microsoft for making spam and virus-writing
> profitable. Given that roughly 90% OF ALL EMAIL TRAFFIC is now spam, and
> that the spam is predominantly generated by the Russian mafia, I'd say
> that Microsoft has some 'splainin' to
>
> As for why I get distraught about it, well it's my job. I'm a Unix admin.
> :-)
>
> Colin
Oh good gosh, if Microsoft were not so easy to hack, Apple or Unix would be
the next "easy" target. Be glad your job is to work with a less sought
after target. If Microsoft and it's inept abilities to curb spam were to
disappear tomorrow your job would become a nightmare 3 or 4 weeks later.
The next most popular OS would be the target just like Microsoft is now.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:24:58 +0000, Colin B. wrote:
>
>> That would be me. :-)
>
> And me, for much the same reasons. But explaining that to a non-techie is
> a lost cause. With a great deal of persuasion you might get them to use
> Thunderbird.
>
> There are applications that don't run under anything but Windows so I have
> it on my machine. But most of the time, and all the time I'm online, I
> use Linux. When I get the time I'm going to try WINE (Windows emulator)
> and see if the apps I use will run under it.
>
Try vmware server on linux. Any windows apps you need will run with no
problems. You can install windows and any windows apps that you might
need. When your windows virtual machine gets hacked, just delete and
reinstall. Your linux machine will be the none the worse for wear.
http://www.vmware.com/products/server/
I have it on my linux box running win2K, winXP and Solaris 10, all at
the same time and with no performance issues. Memory is your friend -
on a desktop with 2.5GB, I still don't have any paging issues.
Fortunately, the only windows apps I need are things like Taxcut and
cutlist. So far, my virtual windows machines haven't been hacked,
probably because of infrequent use and a good linux based
firewall/nat/dns/dhcp linksys wireless router running the dd-wrt linux
based firmware as well as the full suite of AVG protection tools.
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> Puff Griffis wrote:
>> Just curious whets the matter with Outlook ? Its
>> already on your computer, It's free. It's easy and
>> it has filters.
>
> Not Outlook, Outlook _Express_--different products, with no real
> relation between them except that both are from Microsoft, both do
> email, and both have "Outlook" in the name. You have to buy Outlook
> and it doesn't have NNTP support without a third-party add-in. On
> Vista, Outlook Express is no longer called that but is now "Windows
> Mail".
>
> Some people give the impression that they would rather die than use
> Outlook Express and Internet Explorer--I don't understand the mindset
> that gets that distraught about such things, but some people do.
That would be me. :-)
For years, Outlook (and Outlook Express) didn't follow the various mail
RFCs. In other words, they were clients for Windows mail, not Windows
clients for email. Microsoft used them to try to usurp the platform-neutral
nature of email.
Also, they had such lovely "features" as auto-open attachments. Before
Outlook came along, there were hoax emails that went around claiming,
"DO NOT OPEN AN EMAIL MESSAGE WITH THE SUBJECT (whatever)!!! IT WILL
DESTROY YOUR COMPUTER!!!" Those of us in computing laughed and grimmaced
turnabout at the stupidity of such messages--that is, until Microsoft made
such behaviour possible and even quite likely. Then add the amazing number
of years its taken them to make a product that STILL isn't stable, and
the fact that spam proliferation is predominantly based on Outlook/OE holes,
and I have enough justification to remove it from any PC I own. (And that
doesn't even bring up the issue of default HTML email--or just how badly
MS generates HTML.)
As for IE, similar concerns: They've aggressively added non-standard
extensions to HTML, such that websites designed for IE don't work in a
standards-compliant browser. Web pages that are designed for IE, aren't
really web pages--they're Windows application documents, and have no
business being published on port 80, which is reserved for the web.
Oh yeah, then there's the fact that IE is tied directly into the kernel,
which makes it easier to either trash or take over the user's computer.
Between IE and OE, I blame Microsoft for making spam and virus-writing
profitable. Given that roughly 90% OF ALL EMAIL TRAFFIC is now spam, and
that the spam is predominantly generated by the Russian mafia, I'd say
that Microsoft has some 'splainin' to do.
As for why I get distraught about it, well it's my job. I'm a Unix admin.
:-)
Colin
In article <7ae265af-e63d-43a0-8a31-6e447b8971ee@
13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> I've been using Google Groups, but it has no filters.
>
> I'm tired of sorting out the legitimate posts from the spam.
>
> Can anyone recommend a good (preferably free) news reader that will
> work with Windows Vista?
>
> I'm not really a bit-head, so installation needs to be close to point
> and click.
>
> Thanks, and will be seeing you...
>
> Old Guy
I don't know if it works with Vista, but MicroPlanet Gravity has
been very good to me. Two drawbacks: I can't figure out how to
change the color on threads I've responsed to, and the right
click doesn't work for copying, pasting, &c.
S.
"Buck Turgidson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Bullshit. After using OE for many years, listening to others
>> recommendations I tried other newsreaders. I'm back to using OE and I'm
>> sticking with it. Does everything I want it to do and at no cost. I like
>> it so much I may just send Bill Gates a $20 bill as a thank you.
>>
>
> As usual, I agree with you EP. But I think I'll stop short of the $20
> part.
>
> Just think, if Bill Gates had a nickel for every PC that ever
> crashed.....Oh wait, he does!!!
>
Dear Mr. Gates
Enclosed is $30 cash (cash so we can keep the IRS out of this) to show my
appreciation for giving us Outlook Express for reading newsgroups. It is a
fine program and does everything I could ever want.
Use the $30 to take the family out for a nice dinner. You can even super
size your meal with this much money.
I was going to send you $20 and suggested to my friend Buck that he send you
twenty also. Well, turns out Buck is just a cheap SOB and he didn't want to
help you out. So, I'm sending extra. Maybe Buck will be shamed into
sending you the other 10 dollars this way. I doubt it thought. Last time I
have Buck a nickel to hold the buffalo started to cry because Buck squeezed
so hard. He sure is tight with money.
Thanks again Mr. Gates and I'm looking forward to more of your free
software. So is Buck but he won't write you.
Your friend
Ed
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:50:42 +0000, Leon wrote:
>> If Unix became the next OS in every home like Microsoft is now, do you
>> think
>> that "everyone" would be able to do that fair amount of work to insure
>> its
>> security against spammers?
>
>>> To put it another way, setting up an insecure Unix box takes a fair
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> I think you read that one backwards, Leon :-).
>
Probably so. I have been on medication all week fighting an upper
respitory infection transfered to me my my wife. She sent me an unsecured
e-mail and I read it. ;~)
"Jim Weisgram" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> If you can use Filters or Junk controls or some other method in
> Thunderbird to get rid of all the spam showing up in the Wreck, I'd
> surely like to know how. It looks like you can create filters from
> existing messages, but I don't see how to get them to clean out the
> headers that have already been downloaded.
Yeah for the 3rd or 4th time I have down loaded and installed Thunderbird
and an hour later uninstalled it because the Use filter is greyed out.
Creating the filter was easy enough. Using help was a night mare.
>
> From an Agent user, used to using wildcards when sending to the
> killfile...
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:25:46 +0000, Leon wrote:
>
>> Until
>> another OS gets the attention that Windows does by the spammers no really
>> knows what holes of methods can be devised in the future to cause havoc.
>> To
>> think that your set up is impenetrable is to be a bit naive.
>
> Leon, the point he's trying to make is that spammers didn't have to devise
> any methods to get into Windows - Microsoft provided them :-).
I totally agree and am not defending Microsoft at all. They created this
problem. But like "nukes" the problem is not going to go away. An industry
has been created and will continue with or with out an easy target.
>
> AFAIK, that is not the case with any of the Unix variants. I wrote code
> to control, among other things, smelters, rolling mills, radio
> telescopes, and computer aided dispatch. All of them were concerned about
> security for obvious reasons, especially the highway patrol :-).
>
> To put it another way, setting up an insecure Unix box takes a fair amount
> of work. Work that can only be done by someone with superuser authority.
> Setting up a secure Windows box takes a great amount of work and the
> result is a crippled system because many features must be disabled.
>
If Unix became the next OS in every home like Microsoft is now, do you think
that "everyone" would be able to do that fair amount of work to insure its
security against spammers?
I am only saying that Unix is strong because it does not appeal to the
masses, a target not worth the time needed to crack it, today. If Unix
replaced Windows in the future you have thousands and thousands of spammers
that will have reason to go after the next easiest target. I suspect that
Apple would be that target. I remember when Apple had no virus problems.
Had Unix been the first OS to be in every ones homes perhaps Spammers would
not exist today but now they do and they probably are not going to go away
simply because the target becomes harder to get into.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" wrote
>
>> Oh good gosh, if Microsoft were not so easy to hack, Apple or Unix would
> be
>> the next "easy" target. Be glad your job is to work with a less sought
>> after target. If Microsoft and it's inept abilities to curb spam were
>> to
>> disappear tomorrow your job would become a nightmare 3 or 4 weeks later.
>> The next most popular OS would be the target just like Microsoft is now.
>
> While I never really bought into that argument because of the inherent
> difficulty of propagating malicious code at root level on a properly
> administered 'nix box, I do thank MSFT for the ubiquity of modern
> _PERSONAL_
> computing, in spite of itself.
I agree that it would be harder, until some one like the 14 year old that
hacked the I-phone came along and did his thing. ;~) 30 years ago there
were many impossible things yet to be done. Today, now so many.
>
> I was on the corporate side of the game when IBM was basically the only
> show
> in town and I $hudder to think of the cost of those days.
>
>
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:24:58 +0000, Colin B. wrote:
>
>> That would be me. :-)
>
> And me, for much the same reasons. But explaining that to a non-techie is
> a lost cause. With a great deal of persuasion you might get them to use
> Thunderbird.
>
> There are applications that don't run under anything but Windows so I have
> it on my machine. But most of the time, and all the time I'm online, I
> use Linux. When I get the time I'm going to try WINE (Windows emulator)
> and see if the apps I use will run under it.
I'm using Crossover Office (a shell around WINE), some things work well,
others not so well, and some not at all. For example, Lotus 123, TreePad
and TaxAct work fine. I could not load TurboCAD, TaxCut, or MindManager.
The Crossover web site (www.codeweavers.com) is pretty good in rating
applications and has a fairly exhaustive list of what will work, what may
work, and what won't.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Doug Winterburn wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:24:58 +0000, Colin B. wrote:
>>
>>> That would be me. :-)
>>
>> And me, for much the same reasons. But explaining that to a non-techie
>> is
>> a lost cause. With a great deal of persuasion you might get them to use
>> Thunderbird.
>>
>> There are applications that don't run under anything but Windows so I
>> have
>> it on my machine. But most of the time, and all the time I'm online, I
>> use Linux. When I get the time I'm going to try WINE (Windows emulator)
>> and see if the apps I use will run under it.
>>
>
> Try vmware server on linux. Any windows apps you need will run with no
> problems. You can install windows and any windows apps that you might
> need. When your windows virtual machine gets hacked, just delete and
> reinstall. Your linux machine will be the none the worse for wear.
>
> http://www.vmware.com/products/server/
>
I looked into that, the problems I had were a) it requires buying a
Windows license -- seems somewhat defeating of the purpose and b) having to
re-compile the kernel to make it work with OpenSuse.
Someday, I may re-visit this if there is something that I absolutely have
to run that doesn't have an alternative.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Colin B." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> OE is still pretty decent newsreader.
>
> Well...no. It's not. All philosophical rants aside, it's just not a good
> newsreader or mail client. It's slow, buggy, unstable, badly organised,
> and encourages bad posting behaviour.
Bullshit. After using OE for many years, listening to others recommendations
I tried other newsreaders. I'm back to using OE and I'm sticking with it.
Does everything I want it to do and at no cost. I like it so much I may
just send Bill Gates a $20 bill as a thank you.
Puckdropper <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Old Guy <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:7ae265af-e63d-43a0-8a31-6e447b8971ee@
> 13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I've been using Google Groups, but it has no filters.
>>
>> I'm tired of sorting out the legitimate posts from the spam.
>>
>> Can anyone recommend a good (preferably free) news reader that will
>> work with Windows Vista?
>>
>> I'm not really a bit-head, so installation needs to be close to point
>> and click.
>>
>> Thanks, and will be seeing you...
>>
>> Old Guy
>
> I like Xnews... but you don't need just a new newsreader. You need a
> news provider to use with the newsreader. Your ISP may provide NNTP
> access, or if they're like Wildblue they'll dump you off to Google
> Groups.
>
> Puckdropper
I would second the vote for Xnews. I used to use Netscape version 5 or
so, but then it got sucky. For me Xnews was closest to what I was used
to. It is free.
See also news.software.readers for help.
I use Verizon's newsserver (FiOS).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote on 03 Apr 2008 in group
rec.woodworking:
> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:25:46 +0000, Leon wrote:
>
>> Until another OS gets the attention that Windows does by the
>> spammers no really knows what holes of methods can be devised in
>> the future tocause havoc. To think that your set up is
>> impenetrable is to be a bit naive.
>
> Leon, the point he's trying to make is that spammers didn't have to
> devise any methods to get into Windows - Microsoft provided them :-).
>
> AFAIK, that is not the case with any of the Unix variants. I wrote
> code to control, among other things, smelters, rolling mills, radio
> telescopes, and computer aided dispatch. All of them were concerned
> about security for obvious reasons, especially the highway patrol
> :-).
>
> To put it another way, setting up an insecure Unix box takes a fair
> amount of work. Work that can only be done by someone with superuser
> authority. Setting up a secure Windows box takes a great amount of
> work and the result is a crippled system because many features must
> be disabled.
I believe that Unix would be just as insecure if it was as commercially
successful as Windows. I think Unix is secure because it has remained in
the hands of informed and educated administrators and developers,
mostly.
Big commercial success means lots of uninformed users who would demand
whiz-bang applications like games. Programmers who crank out that stuff
aren't particularly concerned with security -- they're concerned with
getting the code out the door by the Christmas sales season and making
pretty pictures, so they take hardware and software shortcuts.
Granted, Unix has architectural features that make it more difficult to
access the privileged areas, but it isn't impossible. I used to be a VAX
developer and administrator. That OS was well designed for security, but
we had regular patches to fix security issues, and that was before the
Internet was developed.
--
Steve B.
New Life Home Improvement
Just curious whets the matter with Outlook ? Its
already on your computer, It's free. It's easy and
it has filters.
Puff
"Old Guy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've been using Google Groups, but it has no
> filters.
>
> I'm tired of sorting out the legitimate posts
> from the spam.
>
> Can anyone recommend a good (preferably free)
> news reader that will
> work with Windows Vista?
>
> I'm not really a bit-head, so installation needs
> to be close to point
> and click.
>
> Thanks, and will be seeing you...
>
> Old Guy
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 08:09:15 -0700, Lou Newell <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Old Guy wrote:
>> I've been using Google Groups, but it has no filters.
>>
>> I'm tired of sorting out the legitimate posts from the spam.
>>
>> Can anyone recommend a good (preferably free) news reader that will
>> work with Windows Vista?
>>
>> I'm not really a bit-head, so installation needs to be close to point
>> and click.
>>
>> Thanks, and will be seeing you...
>>
>> Old Guy
>Thunderbird is free.
If you can use Filters or Junk controls or some other method in
Thunderbird to get rid of all the spam showing up in the Wreck, I'd
surely like to know how. It looks like you can create filters from
existing messages, but I don't see how to get them to clean out the
headers that have already been downloaded.
From an Agent user, used to using wildcards when sending to the
killfile...
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I totally agree and am not defending Microsoft at all. They created this
> problem. But like "nukes" the problem is not going to go away. An
> industry has been created and will continue with or with out an easy
> target.
>
> If Unix became the next OS in every home like Microsoft is now, do you
> think that "everyone" would be able to do that fair amount of work to
> insure its security against spammers?
> I am only saying that Unix is strong because it does not appeal to the
> masses, a target not worth the time needed to crack it, today. If Unix
> replaced Windows in the future you have thousands and thousands of
> spammers that will have reason to go after the next easiest target. I
> suspect that Apple would be that target. I remember when Apple had no
> virus problems. Had Unix been the first OS to be in every ones homes
> perhaps Spammers would not exist today but now they do and they probably
> are not going to go away simply because the target becomes harder to get
> into.
>
You are correct Leon. So much so, that CERT came into being over a hacked
UNIX environment - not hacked Microsoft environments. Virus', worms, trojan
horses, etc. were all very real threats in the UNIX world. One of the
problem with open source environments like UNIX is that it is indeed easy to
create malicious code. Apple has already seen the attention of the hacker
community as well. Not to the degree that Microsoft has, but for all of the
reasons you've listed.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Apr 4, 9:03 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...Add to the mix the fact that sloppy coding inherent in a
> rush-to-market mentality (notably manifested in the infamous "buffer
> overruns") has been responsible for most of the known virus/malicious code
> exploits with MSFT products.
> ...
>
As a matter of curiosity, do you know if MS has begun using Code Data
Separation?
--
FF
"Leon" wrote
> Well I am sure that every thing you say here is true, today. But security
> be design is going to be cracked by some one. The strong point to all
the
> other systems security is that 99% of the people spamming and sending out
> viruses are concentrating on the easy target. As long as other systems
are
> not as widely useful as Windows the attraction is going to be low. Until
> another OS gets the attention that Windows does by the spammers no really
> knows what holes of methods can be devised in the future to cause havoc.
To
> think that your set up is impenetrable is to be a bit naive.
Granted a bit of a simplistic overview, but IMO, the point being missed in
many of the arguments being bantered about, and using the word "security",
is the distinction therein between the "hacking" (for lack of a better term)
or breaching of a system/network; and the act of spreading viri/malicious
code by _exploiting_ sloppy programming.
Both fit nicely under the umbrella of "security" and are often used in
conjunction to compromise a system/network.
The fact that MSFT operating systems, whether for server platforms or
workstations, have historically shipped with defaults set to 'ease of use'
instead of 'security against breach' has been a big problem with the first
part above. Add to the mix the fact that sloppy coding inherent in a
rush-to-market mentality (notably manifested in the infamous "buffer
overruns") has been responsible for most of the known virus/malicious code
exploits with MSFT products.
Now add those two, ALONG with their _ubiquity_, which you correctly mention,
and you get the deadly combination we are currently in with regard to
"security" as users of MSFT products.
I'm not a MSFT detractor, but in the realm of security they indeed shot
themselves, as well as their users, in the foot in their headlong rush for
market share, with "security" arguably not even entering into their thoughts
until forced to do so by the obvious.
That MSFT still does not have their act together in this regard is amply
illustrated by the number of "security updates" in yours and my "Windows
Update" logs ... ... not to mention that this particular genie is VERY
difficult to get back into the code base bottle. ;)
As far as the ease of effecting the "security" of a system/network with
tools, knowledge, and an inherent, built-in capacity to do so, Larry
Blanchard put it very succinctly in another post.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Apr 4, 2:20 pm, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> I believe that Unix would be just as insecure if it was as commercially
> successful as Windows. I think Unix is secure because it has remained in
> the hands of informed and educated administrators and developers,
> mostly.
>
> Big commercial success means lots of uninformed users who would demand
> whiz-bang applications like games. Programmers who crank out that stuff
> aren't particularly concerned with security -- they're concerned with
> getting the code out the door by the Christmas sales season and making
> pretty pictures, so they take hardware and software shortcuts.
The basic internet applications bundled with a typical Unix
application,
are relatively (compared to Msoftware) secure. Maintaining that
scurity
does require routine effort, but to downgrade to a Microsoft level of
insecurity would require great additional effort and cost to the
user.
'Good' marketing would no doubt convince many to do so.
In contrast Microsoft OSes come bundled with grossly insecure
applications.
It takes additional effort to add security.
IOW, it takes additional effort to fuck up a Unix installation.
Windows comes
pre-fucked as a convenience to the spammers and other crackers.
--
FF
> Bullshit. After using OE for many years, listening to others
> recommendations I tried other newsreaders. I'm back to using OE and I'm
> sticking with it. Does everything I want it to do and at no cost. I like
> it so much I may just send Bill Gates a $20 bill as a thank you.
>
As usual, I agree with you EP. But I think I'll stop short of the $20 part.
Just think, if Bill Gates had a nickel for every PC that ever crashed.....Oh
wait, he does!!!
"Jim Behning" <[email protected]>
> I have been using Forte Agent for years. I would not say it is
> neccessarily easy but once you get the basic setup it works pretty
> well. I have posts saved for a long time that I think I might refer to
> again.
I agree. Although I usually use Outlook for general email, like you I use
Agent 4.2 for all my uploading and downloading. It has a number of improved
features over the V1.9 that I was using previously.
I have been using Forte Agent for years. I would not say it is
neccessarily easy but once you get the basic setup it works pretty
well. I have posts saved for a long time that I think I might refer to
again.
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 04:20:55 -0700 (PDT), Old Guy <[email protected]> wrote:
>I've been using Google Groups, but it has no filters.
>
>I'm tired of sorting out the legitimate posts from the spam.
>
>Can anyone recommend a good (preferably free) news reader that will
>work with Windows Vista?
>
>I'm not really a bit-head, so installation needs to be close to point
>and click.
>
>Thanks, and will be seeing you...
>
>Old Guy
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 06:08:13 -0400, "Buck Turgidson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Bullshit. After using OE for many years, listening to others
>> recommendations I tried other newsreaders. I'm back to using OE and I'm
>> sticking with it. Does everything I want it to do and at no cost. I like
>> it so much I may just send Bill Gates a $20 bill as a thank you.
>>
>
>As usual, I agree with you EP. But I think I'll stop short of the $20 part.
>
>Just think, if Bill Gates had a nickel for every PC that ever crashed.....Oh
>wait, he does!!!
>
I like Free Agent, or Agent.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Old Guy wrote:
> I've been using Google Groups, but it has no filters.
>
> I'm tired of sorting out the legitimate posts from the spam.
>
> Can anyone recommend a good (preferably free) news reader that will
> work with Windows Vista?
>
> I'm not really a bit-head, so installation needs to be close to
> point
> and click.
>
> Thanks, and will be seeing you...
Windows Mail works fine (don't let the name fool you, it handles
USENET just fine) and it's included with Vista. There's a freeware
add-in called "OE-Quotefix"
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/ that addresses most
of the complaints (other than that "It's EEEVIILLLL") that people have
with it.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Frank Boettcher wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:58:03 GMT, "Colin B."
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Old Guy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I've been using Google Groups, but it has no filters.
>>>
>>> I'm tired of sorting out the legitimate posts from the spam.
>>>
>>> Can anyone recommend a good (preferably free) news reader that
>>> will
>>> work with Windows Vista?
>>>
>>> I'm not really a bit-head, so installation needs to be close to
>>> point and click.
>>>
>>> Thanks, and will be seeing you...
>>
>> Years ago I would have said use Forte Free Agent, but it has been
>> discontinued.
>
> I'm using it as I type. Do you mean that the free version is not
> available for new suscribers?
>
> It does not, however, have filters in the free version.
There is no free version. It was discontinued years ago. The "Free
Agent" that you can find occasionally is abandonware. The only
product Forte has now is "Agent", which you can use for free as
annoyware--the disabled features aren't hidden and every time you
inadvertently click on one it comes up with an ad for the for-pay
product.
> Probably your best bet is to use Thunderbird for both
>> usenet and mail.
>>
>> Ironically, one of the first things you might want to do when you
>> leave Google Groups is filter out all posts from @google.com.
>> That's
>> where 90% of the usenet spam is coming from these days.
>>
>> Colin
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Puff Griffis wrote:
> Just curious whets the matter with Outlook ? Its
> already on your computer, It's free. It's easy and
> it has filters.
Not Outlook, Outlook _Express_--different products, with no real
relation between them except that both are from Microsoft, both do
email, and both have "Outlook" in the name. You have to buy Outlook
and it doesn't have NNTP support without a third-party add-in. On
Vista, Outlook Express is no longer called that but is now "Windows
Mail".
Some people give the impression that they would rather die than use
Outlook Express and Internet Explorer--I don't understand the mindset
that gets that distraught about such things, but some people do.
> "Old Guy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I've been using Google Groups, but it has no
>> filters.
>>
>> I'm tired of sorting out the legitimate posts
>> from the spam.
>>
>> Can anyone recommend a good (preferably free)
>> news reader that will
>> work with Windows Vista?
>>
>> I'm not really a bit-head, so installation needs
>> to be close to point
>> and click.
>>
>> Thanks, and will be seeing you...
>>
>> Old Guy
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Old Guy wrote:
> I've been using Google Groups, but it has no filters.
>
> I'm tired of sorting out the legitimate posts from the spam.
>
> Can anyone recommend a good (preferably free) news reader that will
> work with Windows Vista?
>
> I'm not really a bit-head, so installation needs to be close to point
> and click.
>
> Thanks, and will be seeing you...
>
> Old Guy
As someone else has mentioned, you'll also need a news server. Many you
have to pay for, but I use a free one called aioe.org. It's not perfect,
but I don't see a lot of spam in the Wreck. So it does some filtering.
Whatever reader you settle on ( I also use Thunderbird from mozilla.org)
can help you with what aioe lets through.
--
Tanus
This is not really a sig.
http://www.home.mycybernet.net/~waugh/shop/
Maxwell Lol wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> It sounds like you never heard of the "Join the Crew Virus"
>> or Windows XP. All of the Linuxes, Unixes, and OSX are
>> more secure BY DESIGN.
>
> Except when you screw up. The iPhone runs as superuser, and not
> an
> unpriviledged user. This is one reason why it was so easy to hack.
According to McAfee (and a large number of other sources) the "Join
the Crew Virus" was a hoax.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
...
> a living off spam today are no more than two or three hundred and
> never were any more than that.
...
Question I've never understood--how does anybody actually make any
money? I can see the possibility (however remote) that somebody
responds to the phishing, etc., but 98% of what I get is simply
machine-generated gibberish it appears. What's up w/ that?
--
"Colin B." wrote
> As for why I get distraught about it, well it's my job. I'm a Unix admin.
Yeah, well ... about 20+ years ago I gave up my priestly robes and embraced
Windows. It's arguably made my _personal_ computing/online life much simpler
(and cheaper than previously possible) despite its many shortcomings.
... not to mention that it's difficult to imagine my 86 year old mother
'spamming the family' on anything else. :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Larry Blanchard" wrote
> To put it another way, setting up an insecure Unix box takes a fair amount
> of work. Work that can only be done by someone with superuser authority.
> Setting up a secure Windows box takes a great amount of work and the
> result is a crippled system because many features must be disabled.
Except for the last line, very well said ... however, I consider a box upon
which I can't run my software of choice "crippled", no matter how "secure".
:)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Colin B." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Kp8Jj.23981$Cj7.397@pd7urf2no...
>... I'm a Unix admin.
> :-)
>
> Colin
That's really all you needed to say :)
--
********
Bill Pounds
http://www.billpounds.com
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote
> IOW, it takes additional effort to fuck up a Unix installation.
> Windows comes
> pre-fucked as a convenience to the spammers and other crackers.
LOL ... pretty much what Larry B said, but with a bit more delicacy. :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Leon" wrote
> Oh good gosh, if Microsoft were not so easy to hack, Apple or Unix would
be
> the next "easy" target. Be glad your job is to work with a less sought
> after target. If Microsoft and it's inept abilities to curb spam were to
> disappear tomorrow your job would become a nightmare 3 or 4 weeks later.
> The next most popular OS would be the target just like Microsoft is now.
While I never really bought into that argument because of the inherent
difficulty of propagating malicious code at root level on a properly
administered 'nix box, I do thank MSFT for the ubiquity of modern _PERSONAL_
computing, in spite of itself.
I was on the corporate side of the game when IBM was basically the only show
in town and I $hudder to think of the cost of those days.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:24:58 +0000, Colin B. wrote:
> That would be me. :-)
And me, for much the same reasons. But explaining that to a non-techie is
a lost cause. With a great deal of persuasion you might get them to use
Thunderbird.
There are applications that don't run under anything but Windows so I have
it on my machine. But most of the time, and all the time I'm online, I
use Linux. When I get the time I'm going to try WINE (Windows emulator)
and see if the apps I use will run under it.
On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:25:46 +0000, Leon wrote:
> Until
> another OS gets the attention that Windows does by the spammers no really
> knows what holes of methods can be devised in the future to cause havoc. To
> think that your set up is impenetrable is to be a bit naive.
Leon, the point he's trying to make is that spammers didn't have to devise
any methods to get into Windows - Microsoft provided them :-).
AFAIK, that is not the case with any of the Unix variants. I wrote code
to control, among other things, smelters, rolling mills, radio
telescopes, and computer aided dispatch. All of them were concerned about
security for obvious reasons, especially the highway patrol :-).
To put it another way, setting up an insecure Unix box takes a fair amount
of work. Work that can only be done by someone with superuser authority.
Setting up a secure Windows box takes a great amount of work and the
result is a crippled system because many features must be disabled.
On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:50:42 +0000, Leon wrote:
>>
>
> If Unix became the next OS in every home like Microsoft is now, do you think
> that "everyone" would be able to do that fair amount of work to insure its
> security against spammers?
>> To put it another way, setting up an insecure Unix box takes a fair
^^^^^^^^
I think you read that one backwards, Leon :-).
> I am only saying that Unix is strong because it does not appeal to the
> masses, a target not worth the time needed to crack it, today.
I don't doubt that dedicated hackers could get into Unix. They have
before, albeit most intrusions were of the "worm" and not the "virus"
species.
But when every process runs in its own protected memory space, it does
limit the opportunities for system-wide damage. And at least one Unix,
OpenBSD, was designed specifically for security.
But your point is valid. There would surely be more hacking attempts, and
successes, were Unix the predominant OS. I just don't think they'd be as
frequent or as severe.
Tanus wrote:
> Old Guy wrote:
>> I've been using Google Groups, but it has no filters.
>>
>> I'm tired of sorting out the legitimate posts from the spam.
>>
>> Can anyone recommend a good (preferably free) news reader that will
>> work with Windows Vista?
>>
>> I'm not really a bit-head, so installation needs to be close to point
>> and click.
>>
>> Thanks, and will be seeing you...
>>
>> Old Guy
>
> As someone else has mentioned, you'll also need a news server. Many you
> have to pay for, but I use a free one called aioe.org. It's not perfect,
> but I don't see a lot of spam in the Wreck. So it does some filtering.
> Whatever reader you settle on ( I also use Thunderbird from mozilla.org)
> can help you with what aioe lets through.
>
I used Netscape 7 for main years because of the browser and email. As
previously said Netscape died. I Installed FireFox and Thunderbird. I
have been very satisfied with both. I also installed the Thunderbird
Lightening addin Again I am very satisfied.
Both work in ways like like the old Netscape.
I'm very happy with Agent as well, but I'm not sure "Free Agent" is
still available.
-Zz
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:31:34 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Jim Behning" <[email protected]>
>> I have been using Forte Agent for years. I would not say it is
>> neccessarily easy but once you get the basic setup it works pretty
>> well. I have posts saved for a long time that I think I might refer to
>> again.
>
>I agree. Although I usually use Outlook for general email, like you I use
>Agent 4.2 for all my uploading and downloading. It has a number of improved
>features over the V1.9 that I was using previously.
>
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:24:58 +0000, Colin B. wrote:
>>>
>>>> That would be me. :-)
>>> And me, for much the same reasons. But explaining that to a non-techie
>>> is
>>> a lost cause. With a great deal of persuasion you might get them to use
>>> Thunderbird.
>>>
>>> There are applications that don't run under anything but Windows so I
>>> have
>>> it on my machine. But most of the time, and all the time I'm online, I
>>> use Linux. When I get the time I'm going to try WINE (Windows emulator)
>>> and see if the apps I use will run under it.
>>>
>> Try vmware server on linux. Any windows apps you need will run with no
>> problems. You can install windows and any windows apps that you might
>> need. When your windows virtual machine gets hacked, just delete and
>> reinstall. Your linux machine will be the none the worse for wear.
>>
>> http://www.vmware.com/products/server/
>>
>
> I looked into that, the problems I had were a) it requires buying a
> Windows license -- seems somewhat defeating of the purpose and b) having to
> re-compile the kernel to make it work with OpenSuse.
>
> Someday, I may re-visit this if there is something that I absolutely have
> to run that doesn't have an alternative.
>
I already had the windows OS from previous purchase of hardware where
you have no choice, so no problem. It is a very easy install with
ubuntu and automatix2.
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:04dabec2-63f9-4fdb-9ce2-c0fc22c6f057@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> You can say that all you want but that doesn't make it so.
> I'll explain again why it is not so:
>
> It sounds like you never heard of the "Join the Crew Virus"
> or Windows XP. All of the Linuxes, Unixes, and OSX are
> more secure BY DESIGN. They were designed to NOT
> execute code sent to a machine over the internet by
> an anonymous third party. Microsoftware was DESIGNED
> to execute code sent to a computer over the internet by
> an anonymous third party.
Snip
Well I am sure that every thing you say here is true, today. But security
be design is going to be cracked by some one. The strong point to all the
other systems security is that 99% of the people spamming and sending out
viruses are concentrating on the easy target. As long as other systems are
not as widely useful as Windows the attraction is going to be low. Until
another OS gets the attention that Windows does by the spammers no really
knows what holes of methods can be devised in the future to cause havoc. To
think that your set up is impenetrable is to be a bit naive.