Re: ActiveX - DirectShow vulnerability
Posted: 17 Jul 2009, 17:23
On 07/17/2009 09:21 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
> MEB spewed:
>
>> Heck, let's use 98 Guy as an example... arguing that a worm running
>> rampant through numerous networks such as FaceBook, Twitter and the
>> others, ISN'T a worm... because he can't understand the concept that
>> it IS a worm working its way THROUGH *those networks*...
>
> Koobface is not actually hosted on *those networks*. Don't you
> understand that?
>
> I wouldn't even call facebook, twitter, etc, I wouldn't even call them
> networks. They are single, individual, stand-alone message or content
> portals or servers. There is no "network" functionality with them (at
> least not on a hardware or machine level).
>
>> because he can't understand the concept that it IS a worm working
>> its way THROUGH *those networks*...
>
> By that definition, all malware qualifies as being worms, because all
> malware seeks to (and usually does) "worm" their way into many
> internet-connected (or lan-connected) PC's.
>
> Once upon a time, a worm was supposed to denote a piece of malware that
> was capable of spreading itself directly to other machines without
> requiring the assistance of a third machine acting like a server. I
> believe going so far to be able to spread autonomously - without
> requiring human intervention, activity or assistance.
>
> Koob does not spread from one machine directly to another. Koob only
> spreads by being downloaded from a server to the next victim.
>
> All malware wants to spread to as many machines as possible, and by your
> reasoning that makes the entire malware class (viruses, trojans, etc)
> qualify as being worms, making the definition or term "worm" useless or
> redundant.
>
>> to him, he only sees the outcome of the worms activity thinking
>> that's the issue, rather than the RESULTS...
>
> So you're saying that "outcome" is somehow different than "results" ?
>
> This, people, is an example of MEB-speak at it's best.
And I leave this in its entirety as an example of how completely
uninformed this 98 Guy is, and how ludicrous his arguments and
understanding truly are.
I suggest EVERY forum and USENET group, and ALL security related
sites, place a *sticky* related to this entity so all parties NOW AND IN
THE FUTURE might understand and be WARNED regarding the extent of 98
Guy's ability to understand and comprehend issues related to security,
methodology, and other related to their protection and security.
BE FOREWARNED, this entity has ZERO understanding of anything
necessary for your protection.
--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______
> MEB spewed:
>
>> Heck, let's use 98 Guy as an example... arguing that a worm running
>> rampant through numerous networks such as FaceBook, Twitter and the
>> others, ISN'T a worm... because he can't understand the concept that
>> it IS a worm working its way THROUGH *those networks*...
>
> Koobface is not actually hosted on *those networks*. Don't you
> understand that?
>
> I wouldn't even call facebook, twitter, etc, I wouldn't even call them
> networks. They are single, individual, stand-alone message or content
> portals or servers. There is no "network" functionality with them (at
> least not on a hardware or machine level).
>
>> because he can't understand the concept that it IS a worm working
>> its way THROUGH *those networks*...
>
> By that definition, all malware qualifies as being worms, because all
> malware seeks to (and usually does) "worm" their way into many
> internet-connected (or lan-connected) PC's.
>
> Once upon a time, a worm was supposed to denote a piece of malware that
> was capable of spreading itself directly to other machines without
> requiring the assistance of a third machine acting like a server. I
> believe going so far to be able to spread autonomously - without
> requiring human intervention, activity or assistance.
>
> Koob does not spread from one machine directly to another. Koob only
> spreads by being downloaded from a server to the next victim.
>
> All malware wants to spread to as many machines as possible, and by your
> reasoning that makes the entire malware class (viruses, trojans, etc)
> qualify as being worms, making the definition or term "worm" useless or
> redundant.
>
>> to him, he only sees the outcome of the worms activity thinking
>> that's the issue, rather than the RESULTS...
>
> So you're saying that "outcome" is somehow different than "results" ?
>
> This, people, is an example of MEB-speak at it's best.
And I leave this in its entirety as an example of how completely
uninformed this 98 Guy is, and how ludicrous his arguments and
understanding truly are.
I suggest EVERY forum and USENET group, and ALL security related
sites, place a *sticky* related to this entity so all parties NOW AND IN
THE FUTURE might understand and be WARNED regarding the extent of 98
Guy's ability to understand and comprehend issues related to security,
methodology, and other related to their protection and security.
BE FOREWARNED, this entity has ZERO understanding of anything
necessary for your protection.
--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______