Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.freeware > #252747 > unrolled thread

{OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.freeware

Contents

  {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Yrrah <Yrrah-acf@acf.invalid> - 2016-01-19 15:36 +0100
    Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2016-01-19 15:45 -0200
      Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Yrrah <Yrrah-acf@acf.invalid> - 2016-01-19 19:04 +0100
        Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2016-01-19 18:52 +0000
          Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2016-01-19 17:04 -0200
          Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Jonno <me@privacy.nob> - 2016-01-19 19:58 +0000
          Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Spamblk <ZapSpam@SpamMeNot.invalid> - 2016-01-19 21:52 +0000
            Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Jenny Telia <jnytelia@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 08:03 +0100
              Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2016-01-20 14:28 -0200
                Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Joe Zeff <the.guy.with.the.sideburns@lasfsinc.info> - 2016-01-21 18:47 +0000
              Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Mark Warner <mhwarner.inhibitions@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 21:06 -0500
                Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Jenny Telia <jnytelia@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 13:38 +0100
                Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers FredW <fredw@ninmule.invalid> - 2016-01-21 14:23 +0100
                  Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Jon Danniken <jonSPAMdanniken@yaSMPAhoo.com> - 2016-01-21 07:23 -0800
                    Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Yrrah <Yrrah-acf@acf.invalid> - 2016-01-21 17:42 +0100
                      Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Jon Danniken <jonSPAMdanniken@yaSMPAhoo.com> - 2016-01-21 14:08 -0800
                        Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Yrrah <Yrrah-acf@acf.invalid> - 2016-01-22 15:18 +0100
                    Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Mark Warner <mhwarner.inhibitions@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 17:41 -0500
                      Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Jon Danniken <jonSPAMdanniken@yaSMPAhoo.com> - 2016-01-22 15:11 -0800
                        Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Mark Warner <mhwarner.inhibitions@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 20:17 -0500
                          Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Jon Danniken <jonSPAMdanniken@yaSMPAhoo.com> - 2016-01-23 13:40 -0800
              Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Spamblk <ZapSpam@SpamMeNot.invalid> - 2016-01-21 06:21 +0000
                Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Joe Zeff <the.guy.with.the.sideburns@lasfsinc.info> - 2016-01-21 18:52 +0000
                  Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Spamblk <ZapSpam@SpamMeNot.invalid> - 2016-01-21 23:40 +0000
                    Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Joe Zeff <the.guy.with.the.sideburns@lasfsinc.info> - 2016-01-22 00:51 +0000
                      Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Spamblk <ZapSpam@SpamMeNot.invalid> - 2016-01-22 05:39 +0000
                        Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Joe Zeff <the.guy.with.the.sideburns@lasfsinc.info> - 2016-01-22 08:34 +0000
                          Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Spamblk <ZapSpam@SpamMeNot.invalid> - 2016-01-22 12:36 +0000
        Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2016-01-19 17:08 -0200
          Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Yrrah <Yrrah-acf@acf.invalid> - 2016-01-20 15:10 +0100
            Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers John Corliss <q34wsk20@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-21 14:55 -0800
              Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Maurice Helwig <maurice_helwig@internode.on.net> - 2016-01-22 17:11 +1000
                Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers John Corliss <q34wsk20@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-21 23:47 -0800
                  Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Maurice Helwig <maurice_helwig@internode.on.net> - 2016-01-22 19:26 +1000
                    Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> - 2016-01-22 10:14 +0000
                  Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-27 20:29 +0000
                Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Mark Warner <mhwarner.inhibitions@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 11:18 -0500
                  Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> - 2016-01-22 16:23 +0000
                  Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers John Corliss <q34wsk20@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-22 15:57 -0800
          Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Yrrah <Yrrah-acf@acf.invalid> - 2016-01-20 14:58 +0100
            Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers John Corliss <q34wsk20@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-20 08:58 -0800
              Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Yrrah <Yrrah-acf@acf.invalid> - 2016-01-20 18:14 +0100
                Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers John Corliss <q34wsk20@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-20 12:18 -0800
    Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers POKO <pokokat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 16:10 -0500
    Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Maurice Helwig <maurice_helwig@internode.on.net> - 2016-01-20 15:02 +1000
      Re: {OT} Virus takes down hospital's XP computers Spamblk <ZapSpam@SpamMeNot.invalid> - 2016-01-21 06:27 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#253213

On 01/22/2016 05:17 PM, Mark Warner wrote:
> On 01/22/2016 06:11 PM, Jon Danniken wrote:
>> On 01/21/2016 02:41 PM, Mark Warner wrote:
>>> On 01/21/2016 10:23 AM, Jon Danniken wrote:
>>>> On 01/21/2016 05:23 AM, FredW wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:06:05 -0500, Mark Warner wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can't decide? Here, I'll do it for you:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linux Mint
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There you go. You're welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good advice (I ended with Cinnamon)
>>>>> http://www.linuxmint.com/download.php
>>>>
>>>> I was  KDE man at one point, but since they screwed up the application
>>>> menu starting in KDE5 (or Plasma5 or whatever they hell they are
>>>> calling
>>>> it now) I can no longer recommend it.
>>>
>>> Unless something's changed recently, the current Mint KDE is still using
>>> KDE4. Not sure what they plan on doing for the next build on Ub 16.04.
>>
>> Glad to hear it, I know Fedora jumped into it with F22, but I don't
>> think OpenSUSE has gone there yet.
> 
> Yeah, Fedora always goes for the latest and greatest. Clem (the Mint
> developer) is all about stability, functionality, and polish. We need
> both, but I prefer the latter. I've had enough excitement for one lifetime.

I know the feeling, which is why I stopped upgrading at F20.  I looked
into OpenSUSE but I hate all the whitespace they built into the look of
it, and I've been too lazy to root around into KDE and fix it.

Jon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#252920

Jenny Telia <jnytelia@gmail.com> wrote in <news:n7nbac$eob$1@dont-email.me>:

>> 
>> Bollix. 
> 
> Is that another variant of Linux? 


Er, not quite what I had in mind. 

>'Upgrade to Linux' sounds like
> sensible advice, until you ask 'which one'?
> Then all the worms start crawling out of the dead carcase that is Linux.
 
Well you have a point but for me its more about dependencies because different 
distros can run the same software if the dependencies (extension .so the 
equivalent of Windows .DLL ) match up while in other cases the packages written 
for  the latest distro whether Ubuntu, Red Hat etc  will not run on the previous 
version because glibc or something else has been updated.

The problems can be reduced by static linking of binaries. Some programs like 
Firefox seem to be compiled in such a way that its binaries are fairly flexible 
over different distros but IMO Linux is even more plagued by dependencies than 
Windows.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#252986

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 06:21:59 +0000, Spamblk wrote:

> The problems can be reduced by static linking of binaries. Some programs
> like Firefox seem to be compiled in such a way that its binaries are
> fairly flexible over different distros but IMO Linux is even more
> plagued by dependencies than Windows.

*Shrug!*  Just get yourself a distro with a good package manager 
(Anything that's based on Debian or RedHat qualifies, and I'm sure there 
are others.) and let it do the job for you.  If your distro can't keep 
you out of Dependency Hell, it's not worth using.

-- 
Joe Zeff -- The Guy With The Sideburns:
http://www.zeff.us http://www.lasfsinc.info
I mostly just wanted something to grouch about, as it had been
too good a day.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253027

Joe Zeff <the.guy.with.the.sideburns@lasfsinc.info> wrote in 
<news:yN9oy.125242$m53.87842@fx33.iad>:

> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 06:21:59 +0000, Spamblk wrote:
> 
>> The problems can be reduced by static linking of binaries. Some programs
>> like Firefox seem to be compiled in such a way that its binaries are
>> fairly flexible over different distros but IMO Linux is even more
>> plagued by dependencies than Windows.
> 
> *Shrug!*  Just get yourself a distro with a good package manager 
> (Anything that's based on Debian or RedHat qualifies, and I'm sure there 
> are others.) and let it do the job for you.  If your distro can't keep 
> you out of Dependency Hell, it's not worth using.

Maybe I'm being difficult but it seems you are describing the use of a package 
manager to deal with (IMO) bad behavior. In this instance I'm thinking of where 
the main executable is circa 100k then 5 or ten times the size in dependencies. 
Not the standard system functions but esoteric shared objects that arent used by 
anything else.

My recent example was the dig (Domain Internet Groper) tool. I downloaded the 
bindutils version and found it needed various dependencies like libidn.so.*. 
Sometimes you can satisfy by symlinking to the existing (different version) 
libidn .so but this version of dig was having none of it complaining of 
undefined symbols. Now I agree that standard routines used by many programs 
should be in a shared object but half a dozen shared object files used by one 
executable and nowehere else? Not for me thanks.

I ditched the bindutils version, got a version from dnsutils. A large executable 
but with minimal dependencies ran perfectly out of the box. Happy days.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253033

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:40:47 +0000, Spamblk wrote:

> Maybe I'm being difficult but it seems you are describing the use of a
> package manager to deal with (IMO) bad behavior. In this instance I'm
> thinking of where the main executable is circa 100k then 5 or ten times
> the size in dependencies. Not the standard system functions but esoteric
> shared objects that arent used by anything else.

No.  Packages are dynamically linked instead of statically to save space 
and to allow libraries to be updated without needing to recompile and 
update everything that uses them.  Using a package manager, such as apt-
get or dnf allows you to download and install dependencies on the fly, 
instead of having to track them down and install them manually in the 
right order.  And, the only time I've seen something like that happen 
(and I've been using Linux since the '90s and as my main OS for over a 
decade) is when a package is broken into chunks (e.g., LibreOffice, 
Scribus or Wine) to make updating and maintenance easier.

This isn't really the right place for this discussion, but I did think 
that a reply was needed to keep others in this group from getting the 
wrong impression.  If you want to go into more detail, I'd be glad to 
continue the discussion in email as it's clearly off-topic for this group.

-- 
Joe Zeff -- The Guy With The Sideburns:
http://www.zeff.us http://www.lasfsinc.info
You know it's Enterprise Software when the vendor freebie is a red shirt.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253041

Joe Zeff <the.guy.with.the.sideburns@lasfsinc.info> wrote in <news:22foy.283043$qV1.209340@fx25.iad>:

> No.  Packages are dynamically linked instead of statically to save space 
> and to allow libraries to be updated without needing to recompile and 
> update everything that uses them.

I was referring to precompiled RPMs, DEBs, TXZs etc. I sometimes compile
from source not in the example I cited. You did not call into question
what I implied from certain practise namely the use of multiple esoteric
dependencies. If you have shared routines used in many places you save
space but if you create an executable of less than 100k and 900k of
shared objects used nowehere else you are not saving space moreover such
an executable is less portable IME. The alleged space saved from the use 
of (IMO) multiple esoteric dependencies compared to the relative vast
space of hard drives is simply not IMO worth any extra hassle.


<irrelevant to my point so snipped>. I run in a virtual environment any
package manager does not access the real programs and data on the HD, I
prefer to unpack and manual check/install and if happy I update
permanently. I prefer Linux & Windows, portable software. I do not care
too much  for silent updates and a package manager that quietly installs
dependencies in /usr/lib or wherever smacks IMO of the silent update
mentality and is not for me, thanks.

I solved my problem not by messing with package managers and IMO
cluttering my system with more unwanted dependencies I found a more
portable package that did the same job so happy days. 

> This isn't really the right place for this discussion, but I did think 
> that a reply was needed to keep others in this group from getting the 
> wrong impression.  If you want to go into more detail, I'd be glad to 
> continue the discussion in email as it's clearly off-topic for this group.

I didnt read into your reply any significant challenge to my opinions.
You  disagree it seems about the use of multiple esoteric dependencies
which is your right. No need for any private discussion. I have (I hope
it works) cleared the crosspost to alt.comp.os.windows-xp.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253054

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 05:39:13 +0000, Spamblk wrote:

>  If you have shared routines used in many places you save
> space but if you create an executable of less than 100k and 900k of
> shared objects used nowehere else you are not saving space moreover such
> an executable is less portable IME.

One, last time.  The only time I have ever seen that happen is when 
you're installing a big package such as LibreOffice, Scribus or Wine 
that's been broken down into a number of chunks, and I've been using 
Linux for almost 20 years.  If you want to insist that this kind of thing 
is common in Linux, give me an example.  Extraordinary claims, such as 
yours, need extraordinary evidence.

-- 
Joe Zeff -- The Guy With The Sideburns:
http://www.zeff.us http://www.lasfsinc.info
Veni, Vici...Ventinari.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253063

Joe Zeff <the.guy.with.the.sideburns@lasfsinc.info> wrote in 
<news:gQloy.153755$O41.111168@fx37.iad>:

> On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 05:39:13 +0000, Spamblk wrote:
> 
>>  If you have shared routines used in many places you save
>> space but if you create an executable of less than 100k and 900k of
>> shared objects used nowehere else you are not saving space moreover such
>> an executable is less portable IME.
> 
> One, last time.  The only time I have ever seen that happen is when 
> you're installing a big package such as LibreOffice, Scribus or Wine 
> that's been broken down into a number of chunks, and I've been using 
> Linux for almost 20 years.  If you want to insist that this kind of thing 
> is common in Linux, give me an example.  Extraordinary claims, such as 
> yours, need extraordinary evidence.

In your opinion I made an extraordinary claim. In my view what I wrote was self 
evident. You disagree as is your right.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#252763

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 19:04:57 +0100, Yrrah <Yrrah-acf@acf.invalid>
wrote:

>Shadow <Sh@dow.br>:
>
>> If I was the Australian government, I'd just install Linux.
>
>Most governments (national, regional, local) won't do that. Their ICT
>"experts" and "advisors" are often Micro$oft indoctrinated morons who
>don't understand the open source concept.

	Yes, but like I said, highlighting" XP" was a con, probably
heavily "incentivated" by Micro$oft.

http://thehackernews.com/2016/01/linux-kernel-hacker.html

	Any system is vulnerable to malware and hacks. Even Linux.
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#252838

Shadow <Sh@dow.br>:

> Any system is vulnerable to malware and hacks. Even Linux.

Of course. Linux is an "attractive" target as so many many servers
(and almost all supercomputers) run on Linux. Even Micro$oft uses
Linux to run cloud services.

Yrrah

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253019

Yrrah wrote:
> Shadow <Sh@dow.br>:
> 
>> Any system is vulnerable to malware and hacks. Even Linux.
> 
> Of course. Linux is an "attractive" target as so many many servers
> (and almost all supercomputers) run on Linux. Even Micro$oft uses
> Linux to run cloud services.

One can only hope that the S.O.B. who wrote the virus was in that
hospital, and that his life was dependent on its computers running.

-- 
John Corliss BS206. No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, share,
spy, time-limited, trial or web wares. No warez for me either please:
just freeware -which I define as legally obtainable, local install or
portable computer programs that can be used indefinitely at no cost,
monetary or otherwise.

I filter out any messages to this newsgroup which come from Google
Groups and recommend that you do likewise.

Voting is the opiate of the people.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253044

On 22/01/2016 8:55 AM, John Corliss wrote:
> Yrrah wrote:
>> Shadow <Sh@dow.br>:
>>
>>> Any system is vulnerable to malware and hacks. Even Linux.
>>
>> Of course. Linux is an "attractive" target as so many many servers
>> (and almost all supercomputers) run on Linux. Even Micro$oft uses
>> Linux to run cloud services.
>
> One can only hope that the S.O.B. who wrote the virus was in that
> hospital, and that his life was dependent on its computers running.
>
Yes It is a pretty rotten thing to do John. He could have picked on some 
other organization were lives were not at stake.
I have never worked out how their twisted minds work. They seem to gain 
some delight in doing this sort of thing.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maurice Helwig
~~~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253048

Maurice Helwig wrote:
> On 22/01/2016 8:55 AM, John Corliss wrote:
>> Yrrah wrote:
>>> Shadow <Sh@dow.br>:
>>>
>>>> Any system is vulnerable to malware and hacks. Even Linux.
>>>
>>> Of course. Linux is an "attractive" target as so many many servers
>>> (and almost all supercomputers) run on Linux. Even Micro$oft uses
>>> Linux to run cloud services.
>>
>> One can only hope that the S.O.B. who wrote the virus was in that
>> hospital, and that his life was dependent on its computers running.
>>
> Yes It is a pretty rotten thing to do John. He could have picked on some 
> other organization were lives were not at stake.
> I have never worked out how their twisted minds work. They seem to gain 
> some delight in doing this sort of thing.

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10-things/-10-plus-reasons-why-people-write-viruses/

-- 
John Corliss BS206. No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, share,
spy, time-limited, trial or web wares. No warez for me either please:
just freeware -which I define as legally obtainable, local install or
portable computer programs that can be used indefinitely at no cost,
monetary or otherwise.

I filter out any messages to this newsgroup which come from Google
Groups and recommend that you do likewise.

Voting is the opiate of the people.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253056

On 22/01/2016 5:47 PM, John Corliss wrote:
> Maurice Helwig wrote:
>> On 22/01/2016 8:55 AM, John Corliss wrote:
>>> Yrrah wrote:
>>>> Shadow <Sh@dow.br>:
>>>>
>>>>> Any system is vulnerable to malware and hacks. Even Linux.
>>>>
>>>> Of course. Linux is an "attractive" target as so many many servers
>>>> (and almost all supercomputers) run on Linux. Even Micro$oft uses
>>>> Linux to run cloud services.
>>>
>>> One can only hope that the S.O.B. who wrote the virus was in that
>>> hospital, and that his life was dependent on its computers running.
>>>
>> Yes It is a pretty rotten thing to do John. He could have picked on some
>> other organization were lives were not at stake.
>> I have never worked out how their twisted minds work. They seem to gain
>> some delight in doing this sort of thing.
>
> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10-things/-10-plus-reasons-why-people-write-viruses/
>
Thanks John, That is a good explanation worth bookmarking

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maurice Helwig
~~~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253057

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 19:26:30 +1000, Maurice Helwig
<maurice_helwig@internode.on.net> wrote:

>On 22/01/2016 5:47 PM, John Corliss wrote:
>> Maurice Helwig wrote:
>>> On 22/01/2016 8:55 AM, John Corliss wrote:
>>>> Yrrah wrote:
>>>>> Shadow <Sh@dow.br>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Any system is vulnerable to malware and hacks. Even Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course. Linux is an "attractive" target as so many many servers
>>>>> (and almost all supercomputers) run on Linux. Even Micro$oft uses
>>>>> Linux to run cloud services.
>>>>
>>>> One can only hope that the S.O.B. who wrote the virus was in that
>>>> hospital, and that his life was dependent on its computers running.
>>>>
>>> Yes It is a pretty rotten thing to do John. He could have picked on some
>>> other organization were lives were not at stake.
>>> I have never worked out how their twisted minds work. They seem to gain
>>> some delight in doing this sort of thing.
>>
>> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10-things/-10-plus-reasons-why-people-write-viruses/
>>
>Thanks John, That is a good explanation worth bookmarking

Aye! the youf of today. I've tried, doG knows I've tried to put Dusty
Bin back on the path of righteousness but there's no helping some
people. I swear his moral compass is set in an oscillating magnetic
field.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

-- 
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath, 
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme, 
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook, 
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag, 
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253492

John Corliss <q34wsk20@yahoo.com> news:n7smm4$nqf$1@dont-email.me
Fri, 22 Jan 2016 07:47:43 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: 

> Maurice Helwig wrote:
>> On 22/01/2016 8:55 AM, John Corliss wrote:
>>> Yrrah wrote:
>>>> Shadow <Sh@dow.br>:
>>>>
>>>>> Any system is vulnerable to malware and hacks. Even Linux.
>>>>
>>>> Of course. Linux is an "attractive" target as so many many
>>>> servers (and almost all supercomputers) run on Linux. Even
>>>> Micro$oft uses Linux to run cloud services.
>>>
>>> One can only hope that the S.O.B. who wrote the virus was in
>>> that hospital, and that his life was dependent on its computers
>>> running. 
>>>
>> Yes It is a pretty rotten thing to do John. He could have picked
>> on some other organization were lives were not at stake.
>> I have never worked out how their twisted minds work. They seem
>> to gain some delight in doing this sort of thing.
> 
> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10-things/-10-plus-reasons-why-peo
> ple-write-viruses/ 
> 

I prefer the writings of Sarah Gordon myself. This article seems to 
be mainly based on an authors opinions and that of some techrepublic 
readers. IE: has little to do with virus writers.


-- 
Hey listen...
On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253098

On 1/22/2016 2:11 AM, Maurice Helwig wrote:

> Yes It is a pretty rotten thing to do John. He could have picked on some 
> other organization were lives were not at stake.

You're assuming this was a targeted attack. More likely it was a run of 
the mill infection having nothing to do with the hospital.

-- 
Mark Warner
...lose .inhibitions when replying

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253100

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 11:18:19 -0500, Mark Warner
<mhwarner.inhibitions@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 1/22/2016 2:11 AM, Maurice Helwig wrote:
>
>> Yes It is a pretty rotten thing to do John. He could have picked on some 
>> other organization were lives were not at stake.
>
>You're assuming this was a targeted attack. More likely it was a run of 
>the mill infection having nothing to do with the hospital.

That's right, these people were willing to hurt anyone. Not you of
course. They make you money. 

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

-- 
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath, 
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme, 
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook, 
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag, 
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253151

Mark Warner wrote:
> Maurice Helwig wrote:
>> 
>> Yes It is a pretty rotten thing to do John. He could have picked on some 
>> other organization were lives were not at stake.
> 
> You're assuming this was a targeted attack. More likely it was a run of 
> the mill infection having nothing to do with the hospital.

If I turned loose an vaccine-resistant strain of smallpox, wouldn't I be
responsible for *all* of the damage it wreaked?

IMO, the same thing applies here.

-- 
John Corliss BS206. No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, share,
spy, time-limited, trial or web wares. No warez for me either please:
just freeware -which I define as legally obtainable, local install or
portable computer programs that can be used indefinitely at no cost,
monetary or otherwise.

I filter out any messages to this newsgroup which come from Google
Groups and recommend that you do likewise.

Voting is the opiate of the people.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#252839

Shadow <Sh@dow.br>:

> Any system is vulnerable to malware and hacks. Even Linux.

Of course. Linux is an "attractive" target as so many many servers
(and almost all supercomputers) run on Linux. Even Micro$oft uses
Linux to run cloud services.

Yrrah

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.freeware

csiph-web