Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #159496 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-16 10:37 -0600 |
| Last post | 2016-02-19 12:55 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 317 — 37 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-16 10:37 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 09:54 -0800
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-16 19:41 +0100
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 21:11 +0100
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-17 02:16 +0100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 22:05 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 23:35 +0100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:41 -0700
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 18:52 -0700
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:13 +1100
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-17 04:53 +0100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 04:21 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 17:24 +1100
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 15:07 +0100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:02 +0000
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-17 08:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:02 +0000
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-17 08:01 +0000
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 18:07 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-17 14:01 -0500
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:41 -0700
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 18:09 -0800
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-17 20:45 -0700
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-17 22:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-18 11:16 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:44 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 15:00 +1100
Re: Ransomware Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-02-18 02:12 +0000
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-17 22:47 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 15:10 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 21:29 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:56 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 23:15 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 18:35 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-18 17:58 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 13:44 +1100
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-17 20:44 -0800
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-18 08:03 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:14 -0600
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-18 19:10 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-18 20:13 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 15:26 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 09:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:26 +0000
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 14:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-19 18:21 -0500
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0700
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-19 23:32 -0500
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:34 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 19:59 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 07:25 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:30 -0600
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-20 10:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:25 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-20 19:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 18:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 13:26 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:16 +1100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 18:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 13:22 +1100
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-19 17:36 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:01 +1100
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-20 16:26 -0800
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-21 13:52 -0800
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-21 18:51 -0500
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:18 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 15:03 +1100
Re: Ransomware Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-20 16:12 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 15:59 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:59 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 14:36 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 17:01 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 18:54 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 19:48 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-20 16:20 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 18:17 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:53 -0800
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0700
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 21:33 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:23 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 14:48 +1100
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:56 -0800
Re: Ransomware Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-19 23:18 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:35 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:12 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-20 15:33 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 12:11 +1100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0700
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 20:00 -0800
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 01:51 -0700
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:40 -0800
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:46 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-18 23:55 -0600
Re: Ransomware mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-19 10:48 +0000
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:56 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 09:50 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:29 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-19 16:54 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 17:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-20 08:30 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-20 15:29 +0000
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-20 10:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-20 11:03 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 16:14 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 16:27 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 09:49 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:29 +1100
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 18:53 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:42 +1100
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 14:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:24 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:53 +1100
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 18:15 +0000
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 17:55 -0800
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 11:19 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 11:46 -0500
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-18 18:01 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 14:36 -0500
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 11:23 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-19 09:28 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:19 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-18 11:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-18 10:24 -0700
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-18 12:27 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:22 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-19 00:07 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 18:34 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:41 -0500
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-19 07:43 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:13 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-19 08:01 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:50 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:34 +0000
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-18 13:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:34 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:33 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 21:04 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 13:46 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:34 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:47 +1100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 11:03 -0500
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-18 19:21 +0000
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-18 20:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-18 21:19 +0000
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 13:48 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-19 14:12 +0000
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 09:54 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:29 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:42 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-21 15:48 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:43 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 12:55 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 07:53 +1100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-23 13:13 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 04:49 +1100
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-21 19:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:19 +0000
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 18:08 -0800
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 18:18 -0800
Re: Ransomware mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-19 18:10 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-19 21:43 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:52 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-19 16:53 -0800
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 18:37 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:32 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:13 -0600
Re: Ransomware Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-02-16 17:57 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-16 14:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 03:42 +0000
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-17 08:05 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-17 12:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> - 2016-02-17 15:21 +0100
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-17 07:38 -0700
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 18:07 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 12:10 -0600
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:34 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 12:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-16 12:49 -0800
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-16 16:55 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-16 17:31 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 16:11 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:26 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-17 12:05 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 17:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:41 -0700
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 18:39 -0800
Re: Ransomware Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-16 16:44 -0400
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-16 15:30 -0600
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 00:20 +0100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-17 18:48 -0500
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@Last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-18 16:46 +0100
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-18 11:06 -0800
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-18 14:43 -0500
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-18 14:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-18 15:48 -0500
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-18 15:36 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:30 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-18 19:38 -0500
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:43 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-19 00:51 +0100
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 13:45 +0000
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-19 15:00 +0100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 07:01 -0700
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-19 10:16 -0500
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 11:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 11:19 -0700
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 18:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 12:54 -0700
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-20 17:46 -0800
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 15:08 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-23 16:01 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:24 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:58 +1100
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 13:40 +0000
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:06 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:11 +1100
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:44 +0100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:13 +1100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-19 17:08 +0100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:41 +1100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 18:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-21 09:35 +0100
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-21 10:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-21 16:48 +0100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-21 18:40 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 01:53 +0100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 18:36 -0700
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 00:12 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 09:37 +0100
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-22 09:17 -0500
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 15:29 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-22 09:42 -0500
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 15:52 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-22 10:23 -0500
Re: Ransomware using libc scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-22 17:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 20:29 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-22 19:38 +0000
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 21:31 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-22 17:17 +0000
Re: Ransomware using libc Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 14:41 -0600
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 22:07 +0100
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-22 09:16 -0700
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 17:21 +0100
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-22 09:34 -0700
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 11:11 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 18:25 +0100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 15:15 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 22:28 +0100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 21:46 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:05 +1100
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:31 +1100
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-18 13:56 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:16 +1100
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-19 17:09 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:55 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-20 19:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-22 14:07 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 07:15 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 18:30 -0500
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-23 01:49 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 13:09 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 13:03 +1100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 13:12 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 06:29 -0500
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 13:35 -0600
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-20 09:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 07:30 -0700
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 11:11 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:05 +1100
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-21 11:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-21 14:04 +0100
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-21 13:57 +0000
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-21 23:28 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:34 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:32 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-21 12:14 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 07:47 +1100
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-17 14:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-17 15:20 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-17 21:31 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-18 08:23 +0000
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-18 11:42 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 06:23 -0500
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-18 11:43 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:48 -0500
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 17:04 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:42 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 04:17 +0000
Re: Ransomware Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-17 04:08 -0400
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:04 +0000
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 06:38 -0500
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-18 13:38 +0100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:57 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:24 +1100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 16:43 -0800
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 12:55 -0600
Page 10 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 16 Next page →
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 12:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160217120351.ea3c46d56b561446dfb3be52@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #159561 |
On 17 Feb 2016 03:42:39 GMT Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > On 2016-02-16, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: > > > My slant was the lack of backups, not the security. Computers have > > always needed backups even before the Internet and Microsoft and the > > USB port reared their ugly heads Why was something so elementary not > > in place? Were there any adults on the payroll? > > Possibly not. At one shop, back before the Internet, I devised a > procedure that would back up literally every bit of data in half an > hour. They had long since stopped bothering with it when disaster > struck, and I was left to pick through the pieces and try to put > something together again. Grrr. One place I set up with an almost fully automated backup system, all they had to do was change the tape daily (from the box of day labeled tapes) and once a week take the Friday tape away and replace it with the oldest one from the offsite set of weekly tapes. So I'm sure you can guess what happened - one night the hard disc fails, during the backup! I arrive with a new hard disc, install the OS and start to restore the backup - which of course fails. So far so good, I eject the backup tape and ask for the previous day's tape warning them that they've lost a day's input. That's when it came out that they had *never* changed the tape. > > I wonder if well tested back up mechanisms are being replaced by The > > Cloud simply because its cheaper?. When a disaster hits its nice to be > > able to point at the bad guy rather than riffling through a virtual > > Rolodex. . > > And just the other day I saw an ad in a local paper for a course showing > lusers how to use the Cloud. <shudder> These days they need courses on *avoiding* the(ugh) cloud - any of the clouds. Look into copying contacts from IOS to Android - it *is* possible without going through a cloud service but this will not be obvious from the search results you'll get on the web or in the app stores. How about setting up a home NAS so that you can keep your contacts, photos and whatnot on your phone(s) backed up on your own storage, perhaps with niceties like a family contact list - it's possible but not exactly easy to even find out how to do it. > It all boils down to one word: convenience. As any marketroid can tell > you, that trumps everything. Yep, the trick is to sneak quality in under the hood. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 15:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l7cepc-dgt.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #159579 |
In article <20160217120351.ea3c46d56b561446dfb3be52@eircom.net>, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >On 17 Feb 2016 03:42:39 GMT >Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2016-02-16, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> > My slant was the lack of backups, not the security. Computers have >> > always needed backups even before the Internet and Microsoft and the >> > USB port reared their ugly heads Why was something so elementary not >> > in place? Were there any adults on the payroll? >> >> Possibly not. At one shop, back before the Internet, I devised a >> procedure that would back up literally every bit of data in half an >> hour. They had long since stopped bothering with it when disaster >> struck, and I was left to pick through the pieces and try to put >> something together again. Grrr. > > One place I set up with an almost fully automated backup system, >all they had to do was change the tape daily (from the box of day labeled >tapes) and once a week take the Friday tape away and replace it with the >oldest one from the offsite set of weekly tapes. > > So I'm sure you can guess what happened - one night the hard disc >fails, during the backup! I arrive with a new hard disc, install the OS and >start to restore the backup - which of course fails. So far so good, I >eject the backup tape and ask for the previous day's tape warning them that >they've lost a day's input. That's when it came out that they had *never* >changed the tape. *always* exercise the backups. I have in my consulting contracts rights to verify this, with largish penalties for not doing the backups. I do an offsite rebuild of every clients system from backups at least once every year, scheduled somehwat at random (to fill in my time, but it is sufficiently random for them). At one PPOE they had a failover site, where the primary site ran 3-way mirroring synchronisation to make backup disks, which were shipped across town, and were the masters for a 2-way mirror; ready by next morning. This system then ran as a shadow system. Once a week one of the disks were taken out of circulation and stored in a mountain vault. Daily transaction tapes were also shipped to this vault. These transaction tapes were the only ones readable when they needed to build a new system two decades later; every one had the last 5 days of transactions, and a sufficient number of them were readable to make a complete reconstruction. This is the level of backup I insist on. >> > I wonder if well tested back up mechanisms are being replaced by The >> > Cloud simply because its cheaper?. When a disaster hits its nice to be >> > able to point at the bad guy rather than riffling through a virtual >> > Rolodex. . >> >> And just the other day I saw an ad in a local paper for a course showing >> lusers how to use the Cloud. <shudder> > > These days they need courses on *avoiding* the(ugh) cloud - any of >the clouds. Look into copying contacts from IOS to Android - it *is* >possible without going through a cloud service but this will not be obvious >from the search results you'll get on the web or in the app stores. > > How about setting up a home NAS so that you can keep your contacts, >photos and whatnot on your phone(s) backed up on your own storage, perhaps >with niceties like a family contact list - it's possible but not exactly >easy to even find out how to do it. I have a NAS with three USB disks as a three-way mirror, and a fourth one NFS-and loop mounted from the next building. Weekly backups to another country (but incremental ones). >> It all boils down to one word: convenience. As any marketroid can tell >> you, that trumps everything. > > Yep, the trick is to sneak quality in under the hood. No, have the regime in the work contract. Just formulate them right. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 07:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1bd1rvxuyl.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> |
| In reply to | #159579 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes: > > So I'm sure you can guess what happened - one night the hard disc > fails, during the backup! I arrive with a new hard disc, install the OS and > start to restore the backup - which of course fails. So far so good, I > eject the backup tape and ask for the previous day's tape warning them that > they've lost a day's input. That's when it came out that they had *never* > changed the tape. Ah, yes. One Christmas break I was working on my Generals paper (one of the major steps on the way to a PhD at University of Washington in the early 1980s) when I filled my disk space quota. I made a couple of tries at saving before I realized what had happened, and the editor created a new version on every try, at which point I discovered the sysadmin had imposed a three file version limit without telling me (in fairness, he had announced it when it was instituted some months prior; I'd removed my limit and written a script that would go through my directories on logout and remove all but the newest version of every file on my account, figuring that this did a better job of meeting the goal. It was when he re-imposed the limit he didn't tell me). So now I had three incomplete saves of the paper, and my oldest, complete copy was gone. So I went into the lab to restore from backup, and learned that there hadn't been a successful backup since before Thanksgiving, something else the sysadmin hadn't mentioned to anybody. I was not a happy camper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 18:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <na2ct40a33@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #159579 |
On 2016-02-17, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On 17 Feb 2016 03:42:39 GMT > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > >> It all boils down to one word: convenience. As any marketroid can tell >> you, that trumps everything. > > Yep, the trick is to sneak quality in under the hood. Heh. I've been bootlegging quality for years. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 12:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <na5197$p6e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #159596 |
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message news:na2ct40a33@news4.newsguy.com... > On 2016-02-17, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > >> On 17 Feb 2016 03:42:39 GMT >> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >> >>> It all boils down to one word: convenience. As any marketroid can tell >>> you, that trumps everything. >> >> Yep, the trick is to sneak quality in under the hood. > > Heh. I've been bootlegging quality for years. > By "bootlegging quality", you are enabling those folks who worship convenience. They are such dullards that they *think* the convenient version is providing that quality experience. IMHO these folks need to be re-educated that convenience is *not* providing them with a high quality life. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 21:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <na5ddp0eub@news7.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #159701 |
On 2016-02-18, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: > "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message > news:na2ct40a33@news4.newsguy.com... > >> On 2016-02-17, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >> >>> On 17 Feb 2016 03:42:39 GMT >>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> It all boils down to one word: convenience. As any marketroid can tell >>>> you, that trumps everything. >>> >>> Yep, the trick is to sneak quality in under the hood. >> >> Heh. I've been bootlegging quality for years. > > By "bootlegging quality", you are enabling those folks who worship > convenience. They are such dullards that they *think* the convenient > version is providing that quality experience. IMHO these folks need to be > re-educated that convenience is *not* providing them with a high quality > life. Oh, my stuff isn't that convenient for them. It usually uses that nasty keyboard rather than some pointy-clicky thing that is fun to play with but a pain in the ass for an experienced user. But quality goes beyond the user interface. It's software that Does The Right Thing even if it was harder to write. It's software that keeps on working in situations that would make a lesser program throw up its hands. If that requires that a user knows what he's doing, tough. I write tools, not toys. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 12:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <na5118$nqk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #159561 |
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message news:na0q7f22ist@news7.newsguy.com... > On 2016-02-16, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: > > [snip...] [snip...] > [snip...] > > It all boils down to one word: convenience. As any marketroid can tell > you, > that trumps everything. > Once there lived upon the surface of the planet Earth... people who cared if food tasted good, if music sounded good, if things worked well. In the current world, Charlie is right. Convenience trumps everything. :-( -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 12:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bae011af-ce1d-4846-addc-da1b0f8cd21a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159504 |
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 11:00:40 AM UTC-7, Roger Blake wrote: > If the hospital in question had an adequate backup regimen they > could simply tell the ransomware scumbags to go pound sand. It > sounds like they were negligent in not doing so. Oh, that's true enough. But it's not like backing up computers is easy and convenient - although that's true for individual users, not companies with networks and so on. However, it's not as if people get hit by ransomware because they've installed software from dodgy sources - instead, they just have to look at the wrong web site. This is negligence on the part of Microsoft and others in distributing software which has vulnerabilities. It's known that input from the Internet may be hostile. So it needs to be handled with caution. Something like the Qubes OS is a step in the right direction. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 16:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87fuwsi7td.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #159515 |
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: > On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 11:00:40 AM UTC-7, Roger Blake wrote: > >> If the hospital in question had an adequate backup regimen they >> could simply tell the ransomware scumbags to go pound sand. It >> sounds like they were negligent in not doing so. > > Oh, that's true enough. But it's not like backing up computers is easy and > convenient - although that's true for individual users, not companies with > networks and so on. > You have that exactly backwards. It's difficult for an individual user, but for a company with networks and so on, it becomes nearly trivial to implement. --NK1G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 17:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <dihpqbF34nfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159524 |
"Lawrence Statton" wrote: > Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: >> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 11:00:40 AM UTC-7, Roger Blake wrote: >> >>> If the hospital in question had an adequate backup regimen they >>> could simply tell the ransomware scumbags to go pound sand. It >>> sounds like they were negligent in not doing so. >> >> Oh, that's true enough. But it's not like backing up computers is easy >> and >> convenient - although that's true for individual users, not companies >> with >> networks and so on. >> > > > You have that exactly backwards. It's difficult for an individual user, > but for a company with networks and so on, it becomes nearly trivial to > implement. Oddly enough, I read that as the inverse of what he actually said, it was so obvious to me which was the right way. We had backups three times a day, most users didn't even know they were being made. I never knew of a time they were actually used. I have been burned by malware at least three times at home. Once was certainly Microsoft's fault.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 16:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6d40b829-9e63-458a-bc02-99383d8d1a22@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159515 |
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 3:49:38 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: > > If the hospital in question had an adequate backup regimen they > > could simply tell the ransomware scumbags to go pound sand. It > > sounds like they were negligent in not doing so. > > Oh, that's true enough. But it's not like backing up computers is easy and > convenient - although that's true for individual users, not companies with > networks and so on. In the old days with CICS, we would back up the files once a day, and journal transactions during the day. In this way, if there was a data loss--and there were back then--we could recover almost all entered transactions up to the point of failure. Admittedly, recovery was not an easy process. In hospital networks, the staff is constantly entering data into a computer. So maintaining backups and transaction journals might not be so easy. > However, it's not as if people get hit by ransomware because they've installed > software from dodgy sources - instead, they just have to look at the wrong web > site. This is negligence on the part of Microsoft and others in distributing > software which has vulnerabilities. It's known that input from the Internet may > be hostile. So it needs to be handled with caution. Agreed. The vulnerability of networked PC's to external or internal sabotage is inexcusable. Sabotage should not be allowed to get into the network in the first place, and then not be able to do its dirty work. Now they tell us Windows XP is dangerous to still use, full of risks. But didn't they tell us, when it first came out, how wonderful it was?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 14:26 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dii7ipF650gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159515 |
"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message news:bae011af-ce1d-4846-addc-da1b0f8cd21a@googlegroups.com... > On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 11:00:40 AM UTC-7, Roger Blake wrote: > >> If the hospital in question had an adequate backup regimen they >> could simply tell the ransomware scumbags to go pound sand. It >> sounds like they were negligent in not doing so. > > Oh, that's true enough. But it's not like backing up computers is easy and > convenient - although that's true for individual users, not companies with > networks and so on. > > However, it's not as if people get hit by ransomware because they've > installed > software from dodgy sources - instead, they just have to look at the wrong > web > site. This is negligence on the part of Microsoft and others in > distributing > software which has vulnerabilities. It's known that input from the > Internet may > be hostile. So it needs to be handled with caution. > > Something like the Qubes OS is a step in the right direction. And sandboxing fixes the problem even with malware that does get installed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 11:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <5oa9cb1ht1vsdeqoaorv9udvtbui7184l1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159515 |
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:49:34 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 11:00:40 AM UTC-7, Roger Blake wrote: > >> If the hospital in question had an adequate backup regimen they >> could simply tell the ransomware scumbags to go pound sand. It >> sounds like they were negligent in not doing so. > >Oh, that's true enough. But it's not like backing up computers is easy and >convenient - although that's true for individual users, not companies with >networks and so on. The bigger problem are IT managers who use the same backup takes over and over, so only the past 2 hours is backed up... until they shove the same tapes into the drive again. They told me they just didn't see the need to do backups, it was a waste of their time. I figured they needed to be repaced with someone not an idiot as them being on the job was a waste of company money. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 12:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <dijr3hFirbbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159592 |
"JimP" wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:49:34 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc > <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >>On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 11:00:40 AM UTC-7, Roger Blake wrote: >> >>> If the hospital in question had an adequate backup regimen they >>> could simply tell the ransomware scumbags to go pound sand. It >>> sounds like they were negligent in not doing so. >> >>Oh, that's true enough. But it's not like backing up computers is easy and >>convenient - although that's true for individual users, not companies with >>networks and so on. > > The bigger problem are IT managers who use the same backup [tapes?] over > and over, so only the past 2 hours is backed up... until they shove > the same tapes into the drive again. They told me they just didn't see > the need to do backups, it was a waste of their time. I figured they > needed to be repaced with someone not an idiot as them being on the > job was a waste of company money. In the case of the hospital at hand I think the CEO should be fired. He is likely paid a substantial amount of money to protect the best interests of the organization. Presumably he is paid to have wisdom and good judgment. How can this man be so obtuse that he hasn't heard about software security issues? I have a vague memory of some heads rolling in the Target case???
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 17:58 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <u62acb18ju72efm1gfao5rn3145u826fuc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159594 |
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:05:41 -0600, "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >"JimP" wrote: > >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:49:34 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc >> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >>>On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 11:00:40 AM UTC-7, Roger Blake wrote: >>> >>>> If the hospital in question had an adequate backup regimen they >>>> could simply tell the ransomware scumbags to go pound sand. It >>>> sounds like they were negligent in not doing so. >>> >>>Oh, that's true enough. But it's not like backing up computers is easy and >>>convenient - although that's true for individual users, not companies with >>>networks and so on. >> >> The bigger problem are IT managers who use the same backup [tapes?] over >> and over, so only the past 2 hours is backed up... until they shove >> the same tapes into the drive again. They told me they just didn't see >> the need to do backups, it was a waste of their time. I figured they >> needed to be repaced with someone not an idiot as them being on the >> job was a waste of company money. > >In the case of the hospital at hand I think the CEO should be fired. He is >likely paid a substantial amount of money to protect the best interests of >the organization. Presumably he is paid to have wisdom and good judgment. >How can this man be so obtuse that he hasn't heard about software security >issues? > >I have a vague memory of some heads rolling in the Target case??? Don't remember much about the Target one. Yes, tapes. I'm not sure what tixes are... -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 18:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1954937595.477451900.592030.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159619 |
JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:05:41 -0600, "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> > wrote: >> "JimP" wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:49:34 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc >>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 11:00:40 AM UTC-7, Roger Blake wrote: >>>> >>>>> If the hospital in question had an adequate backup regimen they >>>>> could simply tell the ransomware scumbags to go pound sand. It >>>>> sounds like they were negligent in not doing so. >>>> >>>> Oh, that's true enough. But it's not like backing up computers is easy and >>>> convenient - although that's true for individual users, not companies with >>>> networks and so on. >>> >>> The bigger problem are IT managers who use the same backup [tapes?] over >>> and over, so only the past 2 hours is backed up... until they shove >>> the same tapes into the drive again. They told me they just didn't see >>> the need to do backups, it was a waste of their time. I figured they >>> needed to be repaced with someone not an idiot as them being on the >>> job was a waste of company money. >> >> In the case of the hospital at hand I think the CEO should be fired. He is >> likely paid a substantial amount of money to protect the best interests of >> the organization. Presumably he is paid to have wisdom and good judgment. >> How can this man be so obtuse that he hasn't heard about software security >> issues? >> >> I have a vague memory of some heads rolling in the Target case??? > > Don't remember much about the Target one. > > Yes, tapes. I'm not sure what tixes are... > The Target thing was an inside job by the company that supported their POS terminals (IIRC). I think someone inserted a trojan into a software update. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 18:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87k2m2213s.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #159625 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > The Target thing was an inside job by the company that supported their POS > terminals (IIRC). I think someone inserted a trojan into a software > update. we had been brought in as consultants to small client/server startup that wanted to do payment transactions on their server, they had also invented this technology they called "SSL" they wanted to use, the result is now somewhat called "electronic commerce". Somewhat for having done "electronic commerce", in the mid-90s we were asked to be on the x9a10 financial standard working group that had been given the requirement to preserve the integrity of the financial infrastructure for all retail payments. as part of that effort we did end-to-end threat and vulnerability analysis on number of different kinds of payments. We eventually came up with a financial transaction standard that slightly tweaked the current paradigm and eliminated the ability to use information from previous electronic transaction to perform fraudulent financial transactions ... and therefor eliminated the need to encrypt or hide that information as well as threat of information being stolen in breaches (I've periodically posted here possible explanations about why it has yet to be deployed). http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/x959.html#x959 Since then we were tangentially involved in the (original) cal state breach notification legislation ... we had been brought in to help wordsmith the cal. state electronic signature act and lots of the players were heavily involved in privacy issues and had done detailed public surveys. The #1 issue was fraudulent financial transactions (as result of breaches, skimming, etc taken from previous transactions) about which little or nothing was being done. The issue is institutions normally take security and countermeasures in self-defense ... however in this case, the institution wasn't at risk, it was the public. It was hoped that the (adverse) publicity from the breach notifications would motivate corrective action. dating back to well into last century, there have been cases of criminal organizations compromising makers of POS terminals and ATM cash machines and inserting skimming at time of manufacture. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 16:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87mvr0v0zt.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #159496 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes: > Google news has an article today about "ransomware" against an LA hospital. > The software has encrypted their files and offer to decrypt them for $3.6M > payable in bitcoin. The price seems modest to me, but set that aside for > the moment.. > > It seems to me that one of the side effects might require certification of > software types, similar to the requirements for certain engineers. If you > build a three story office building, there has to be a Registered > Professional Engineer involved who has convinced the government that he > knows what he is doing. Can protection of crucial data bases be far > behind? I submit that software/computers is/are approaching a complexity catastrophe. That is, if you have N things (N a large number) interconnected so that at time t the state of any one thing (for all the things) depends on the state of M other things (M need not be a large number) at time t-1, then as N increases, you appoach a situation in which the state at t+1 is intrinically not calculable for any give t. There is no very good metaphor for a single modern computer, let alone the millions, now connected to the net, running varigeted OSs and software, locally modified, etc. etc. Only the natural world -- the global biosystem, the human brain, global weather, the social structure of Mexico City, say -- offers similar complexity. An increasingly large number of people have been exploring the natural world since the Enlightenment and learning stuff about it. We haven't fully mastered the natural world but we've learned all kinds of tricks and principles. A bunch of Enlightenment-minded bad guys who bring the context of research to malicious hacking can't master the whole complex thing any more that the good guys, nor anymore than we've mastered, say, biology. But they'll find tricks, gaps, doors, vulnerabilities because, in a complex environment, there's no computational way, let alone human way to anticipate them. A (large) team of good guys doing the same kind of research that the bad guys are doing may or may not hit on the same vulnerabilities that the bad guys do. So yeah: totalitarian control (which won't work) or isolation (which may work but will restarin and limit you severly.) </RANT> -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 15:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <xfKdnbRd9ZJNCV7LnZ2dnUU7-XmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #159514 |
Mike Spencer wrote: > > I submit that software/computers is/are approaching a complexity > catastrophe. Yes, you could be right. On the other hand, I run pretty exclusively on Linux desktops. I also have a web/mail/ftp server. That used to be targeted heavily by hackers, until I put denyhosts on it. Two weeks, to the HOUR, after I set that up, the attacks went from 1000+ a day to 3 a day. Obviously, the botnets keep track of the horizon on how long a particular attacking IP is locked out, and if it is over 2 weeks, they decide your site is impenetrable. But, on the user desktops, I run with no special protection. No antivirus software at all, no unusual settings, just general awareness to the fact that there could be bad stuff out there. I've been doing this for 18 years now, with no trouble at all. Some of my kids used to watch all sorts of pirated movies from Chinese web sites, and they did get some add-ons to the browser that caused a little annoyance. I simply removed those add-ons. Now, some of my kids bought personal laptops, with pre-installed Windows. Those never lasted more than 6 months, even though they were behind a firewall with NAT, so they could NOT be attacked directly from the outside. Stuff they unwittingly downloaded was easily able to corrupt those systems. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 00:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <hfncpc-n4s.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #159520 |
In article <xfKdnbRd9ZJNCV7LnZ2dnUU7-XmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> wrote: >Mike Spencer wrote: > > >> >> I submit that software/computers is/are approaching a complexity >> catastrophe. >Yes, you could be right. > >On the other hand, I run pretty exclusively on Linux desktops. I also have >a web/mail/ftp server. That used to be targeted heavily by hackers, until I >put denyhosts on it. Two weeks, to the HOUR, after I set that up, the >attacks went from 1000+ a day to 3 a day. Obviously, the botnets keep track >of the horizon on how long a particular attacking IP is locked out, and if >it is over 2 weeks, they decide your site is impenetrable. I do the same. I also run a number of public SIP servers with some tens of thousands of clients. I run a blacklist of IP networks where the attacks come from. I can prune it down to 38 networks and get rid of ~98.5% of the attacks. I use honeypot accounts. Any IP that register to one of these and place a call three times will be blocked for a month; and then I review the new blocked ones. The list of malperforming IPs is _very_ stable. >But, on the user desktops, I run with no special protection. No antivirus >software at all, no unusual settings, just general awareness to the fact >that there could be bad stuff out there. I've been doing this for 18 years >now, with no trouble at all. Some of my kids used to watch all sorts of >pirated movies from Chinese web sites, and they did get some add-ons to the >browser that caused a little annoyance. I simply removed those add-ons. > >Now, some of my kids bought personal laptops, with pre-installed Windows. >Those never lasted more than 6 months, even though they were behind a >firewall with NAT, so they could NOT be attacked directly from the outside. >Stuff they unwittingly downloaded was easily able to corrupt those systems. My mom was very careful with the web sites she visited, and still her XP machines had ~100 new instances of malware after a month. It got to be a quite tall order to keep cleaning. There are lots of "spelling trapdoors" out there, like micros0ft.com, etc. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web