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 9 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 16 Next page →
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 12:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mv1kcb9p06t192epn2n1rg0o9ocm54159f@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #160037 |
On 21 Feb 2016 15:48:24 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >JimP wrote: >> On 20 Feb 2016 15:18:06 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> >>>JimP wrote: >>>> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 14:12:48 +0000, Ibmekon <Ibmekon> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:48:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>>>>>>On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:56:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>>>>>>>>On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:41:00 -0700, Peter Flass >>>>>>>>><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>><redacted> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Look at the current Apple vs. FBI dustup. Apparently the FBI expects >>>Apple >>>>>>>>>>to develop code to break the encryption on an iPhone. I think I come >>>down >>>>>>>>>>on the side of privacy, but the other side has some valid arguments >>>too. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It seems to me that the FBA wish to bring Apple into line with their >>>>>>>>>policy of scrapping all personal privacy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If Apple argues it is simply impossible to crack the phone - the FBI >>>>>>>>>will create legislation to make it illegal - citing this case. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If Apple argues it is possible to crack the phone, but very difficult >>>>>>>>>and expensive - the FBI will suggest they make it easier on themselves >>>>>>>>>in future by installing an "FBI Only" back door. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The FBI doesn't want apple to "crack the phone". What they want is >>>>>>>>for apple to produce a signed firmware image of the IOS operating >>>>>>>>software with one OS modification, such that it doesn't zap the >>>decryption >>>>>>>>key after 10 invalid PIN's. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Once the image is installed, the FBI can brute force the PIN. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>And probably find zilch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Tim Cook, Apple CEO >>>>>>>"We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we >>>>>>>believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done >>>>>>>everything that is both within our power and within the law to help >>>>>>>them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply >>>>>>>do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They >>>>>>>have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone." >>>>>>>http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/17/tim-cook-apple-wont-create-backdoor-to- >un >>>lock-san-bernardino-attackers-iphone/ >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> He's using hyperbole, of course. >>>>>Well, >>>>>Did the FBI make any request regarding future access to a locked >>>>>iphone ? >>>>>If not, Cook is flat out lying. >>>>>If they did, was it as represented by Cook - ie the ability for the >>>>>FBI to access data in anyones iphone - aka backdoor. >>>>>If not - it is open the the FBI correct what Cook stated. >>>>>I believe Cook. >>>>> >>>>>Carl Goldsworthy >>>>>... >>>>>In a "zero sum game" there are no winners. >>>> >>>> I don't believe either of them. >>> >>>Of course; they're in the throes of a lawsuit. However, consider >>>the virus which wrecked Iran's centrifuges. It was designed to >>>apply to only that one site but is now out in the world. Any >>>software which Apple develops and hands to the FBI or NSA to >>>crack any security will be out on the web and getting used >>>by the very people the FBI/NSA want to stop. >>> >>>A general cracking mechanism should not be given out. It will >>>happen soon enough. The FBI can use the technique described >>>in this newsgroup to access the data on that, and only that, >>>particular phone. >>> >>>people are using their phones to manage all of their assets. >>>if the method of cracking into the phone is availabe, all >>>of their wealth can be transferred to some entity--a terrorism >>>group or government. >>> >>>/BAH >> >> Anyone who does bank or other money transactions on an unsecure device >> like a telephone is a fool that is going to be bitten and then feel a >> great amount of shock. > >If cracking code is produced, noone will be able to tell if their device >is secure. So far, only Apple's marketing assures security. If they >have to provide a general cracking code to law enforcement, noone's >phone is secure. > >I understand your thinking and I would agree except this is not >about accessing that one phone. The Apple vs FBI lawsuits have >to do with making every phone accessible. > > >/BAH Thing is, hackers probably already have a means to get into the iPhones inspite of Apple's claims the phones are secure. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 07:53 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <diumelFccejU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160060 |
"JimP" <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mv1kcb9p06t192epn2n1rg0o9ocm54159f@4ax.com... > On 21 Feb 2016 15:48:24 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >>JimP wrote: >>> On 20 Feb 2016 15:18:06 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>> >>>>JimP wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 14:12:48 +0000, Ibmekon <Ibmekon> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:48:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>>>>>>>On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:56:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott >>>>>>>>Lurndal) >>>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:41:00 -0700, Peter Flass >>>>>>>>>><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>><redacted> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Look at the current Apple vs. FBI dustup. Apparently the FBI >>>>>>>>>>>expects >>>>Apple >>>>>>>>>>>to develop code to break the encryption on an iPhone. I think I >>>>>>>>>>>come >>>>down >>>>>>>>>>>on the side of privacy, but the other side has some valid >>>>>>>>>>>arguments >>>>too. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>It seems to me that the FBA wish to bring Apple into line with >>>>>>>>>>their >>>>>>>>>>policy of scrapping all personal privacy. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>If Apple argues it is simply impossible to crack the phone - the >>>>>>>>>>FBI >>>>>>>>>>will create legislation to make it illegal - citing this case. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>If Apple argues it is possible to crack the phone, but very >>>>>>>>>>difficult >>>>>>>>>>and expensive - the FBI will suggest they make it easier on >>>>>>>>>>themselves >>>>>>>>>>in future by installing an "FBI Only" back door. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The FBI doesn't want apple to "crack the phone". What they want is >>>>>>>>>for apple to produce a signed firmware image of the IOS operating >>>>>>>>>software with one OS modification, such that it doesn't zap the >>>>decryption >>>>>>>>>key after 10 invalid PIN's. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Once the image is installed, the FBI can brute force the PIN. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>And probably find zilch. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Tim Cook, Apple CEO >>>>>>>>"We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we >>>>>>>>believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done >>>>>>>>everything that is both within our power and within the law to help >>>>>>>>them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we >>>>>>>>simply >>>>>>>>do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They >>>>>>>>have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone." >>>>>>>>http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/17/tim-cook-apple-wont-create-backdoor-to- >>un >>>>lock-san-bernardino-attackers-iphone/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He's using hyperbole, of course. >>>>>>Well, >>>>>>Did the FBI make any request regarding future access to a locked >>>>>>iphone ? >>>>>>If not, Cook is flat out lying. >>>>>>If they did, was it as represented by Cook - ie the ability for the >>>>>>FBI to access data in anyones iphone - aka backdoor. >>>>>>If not - it is open the the FBI correct what Cook stated. >>>>>>I believe Cook. >>>>>> >>>>>>Carl Goldsworthy >>>>>>... >>>>>>In a "zero sum game" there are no winners. >>>>> >>>>> I don't believe either of them. >>>> >>>>Of course; they're in the throes of a lawsuit. However, consider >>>>the virus which wrecked Iran's centrifuges. It was designed to >>>>apply to only that one site but is now out in the world. Any >>>>software which Apple develops and hands to the FBI or NSA to >>>>crack any security will be out on the web and getting used >>>>by the very people the FBI/NSA want to stop. >>>> >>>>A general cracking mechanism should not be given out. It will >>>>happen soon enough. The FBI can use the technique described >>>>in this newsgroup to access the data on that, and only that, >>>>particular phone. >>>> >>>>people are using their phones to manage all of their assets. >>>>if the method of cracking into the phone is availabe, all >>>>of their wealth can be transferred to some entity--a terrorism >>>>group or government. >>>> >>>>/BAH >>> >>> Anyone who does bank or other money transactions on an unsecure device >>> like a telephone is a fool that is going to be bitten and then feel a >>> great amount of shock. >> >>If cracking code is produced, noone will be able to tell if their device >>is secure. So far, only Apple's marketing assures security. If they >>have to provide a general cracking code to law enforcement, noone's >>phone is secure. >> >>I understand your thinking and I would agree except this is not >>about accessing that one phone. The Apple vs FBI lawsuits have >>to do with making every phone accessible. > Thing is, hackers probably already have a means to get into the > iPhones No they don't. The most they can do is guess the most insecure PINs or use the iphones that are never locked at all. > inspite of Apple's claims the phones are secure. It isnt a claim, it's a fact if you bother to do the most basic securing of your iphone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 13:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052C5C46DE5C83@aca40f57.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #160060 |
JimP wrote: > On 21 Feb 2016 15:48:24 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >>JimP wrote: >>> On 20 Feb 2016 15:18:06 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>> >>>>JimP wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 14:12:48 +0000, Ibmekon <Ibmekon> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:48:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>>>>>>>On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:56:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:41:00 -0700, Peter Flass >>>>>>>>>><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>><redacted> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Look at the current Apple vs. FBI dustup. Apparently the FBI expects >>>>Apple >>>>>>>>>>>to develop code to break the encryption on an iPhone. I think I come >>>>down >>>>>>>>>>>on the side of privacy, but the other side has some valid arguments >>>>too. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>It seems to me that the FBA wish to bring Apple into line with their >>>>>>>>>>policy of scrapping all personal privacy. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>If Apple argues it is simply impossible to crack the phone - the FBI >>>>>>>>>>will create legislation to make it illegal - citing this case. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>If Apple argues it is possible to crack the phone, but very difficult >>>>>>>>>>and expensive - the FBI will suggest they make it easier on themselves >>>>>>>>>>in future by installing an "FBI Only" back door. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The FBI doesn't want apple to "crack the phone". What they want is >>>>>>>>>for apple to produce a signed firmware image of the IOS operating >>>>>>>>>software with one OS modification, such that it doesn't zap the >>>>decryption >>>>>>>>>key after 10 invalid PIN's. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Once the image is installed, the FBI can brute force the PIN. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>And probably find zilch. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Tim Cook, Apple CEO >>>>>>>>"We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we >>>>>>>>believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done >>>>>>>>everything that is both within our power and within the law to help >>>>>>>>them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply >>>>>>>>do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They >>>>>>>>have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone." >>>>>>>>http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/17/tim-cook-apple-wont-create-backdoor-t o- >>un >>>>lock-san-bernardino-attackers-iphone/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He's using hyperbole, of course. >>>>>>Well, >>>>>>Did the FBI make any request regarding future access to a locked >>>>>>iphone ? >>>>>>If not, Cook is flat out lying. >>>>>>If they did, was it as represented by Cook - ie the ability for the >>>>>>FBI to access data in anyones iphone - aka backdoor. >>>>>>If not - it is open the the FBI correct what Cook stated. >>>>>>I believe Cook. >>>>>> >>>>>>Carl Goldsworthy >>>>>>... >>>>>>In a "zero sum game" there are no winners. >>>>> >>>>> I don't believe either of them. >>>> >>>>Of course; they're in the throes of a lawsuit. However, consider >>>>the virus which wrecked Iran's centrifuges. It was designed to >>>>apply to only that one site but is now out in the world. Any >>>>software which Apple develops and hands to the FBI or NSA to >>>>crack any security will be out on the web and getting used >>>>by the very people the FBI/NSA want to stop. >>>> >>>>A general cracking mechanism should not be given out. It will >>>>happen soon enough. The FBI can use the technique described >>>>in this newsgroup to access the data on that, and only that, >>>>particular phone. >>>> >>>>people are using their phones to manage all of their assets. >>>>if the method of cracking into the phone is availabe, all >>>>of their wealth can be transferred to some entity--a terrorism >>>>group or government. >>>> >>>>/BAH >>> >>> Anyone who does bank or other money transactions on an unsecure device >>> like a telephone is a fool that is going to be bitten and then feel a >>> great amount of shock. >> >>If cracking code is produced, noone will be able to tell if their device >>is secure. So far, only Apple's marketing assures security. If they >>have to provide a general cracking code to law enforcement, noone's >>phone is secure. >> >>I understand your thinking and I would agree except this is not >>about accessing that one phone. The Apple vs FBI lawsuits have >>to do with making every phone accessible. >> >> >>/BAH > > Thing is, hackers probably already have a means to get into the > iPhones inspite of Apple's claims the phones are secure. That's possible. However, I would not llike to have an Apple version roaming around the world available to anyone who wants to make a mess. An Apple version wouldn't have bugs and would have all the intimate knowledge needed to do any cracking. /BAH >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 04:49 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dj3kckFk801U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160155 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052C5C46DE5C83@aca40f57.ipt.aol.com... > JimP wrote: >> On 21 Feb 2016 15:48:24 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> >>>JimP wrote: >>>> On 20 Feb 2016 15:18:06 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>JimP wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 14:12:48 +0000, Ibmekon <Ibmekon> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:48:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>>>>>>>>On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:56:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott >>>>>>>>>Lurndal) >>>>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:41:00 -0700, Peter Flass >>>>>>>>>>><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>><redacted> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Look at the current Apple vs. FBI dustup. Apparently the FBI > expects >>>>>Apple >>>>>>>>>>>>to develop code to break the encryption on an iPhone. I think I > come >>>>>down >>>>>>>>>>>>on the side of privacy, but the other side has some valid >>>>>>>>>>>>arguments >>>>>too. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>It seems to me that the FBA wish to bring Apple into line with >>>>>>>>>>>their >>>>>>>>>>>policy of scrapping all personal privacy. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>If Apple argues it is simply impossible to crack the phone - the >>>>>>>>>>>FBI >>>>>>>>>>>will create legislation to make it illegal - citing this case. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>If Apple argues it is possible to crack the phone, but very > difficult >>>>>>>>>>>and expensive - the FBI will suggest they make it easier on > themselves >>>>>>>>>>>in future by installing an "FBI Only" back door. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>The FBI doesn't want apple to "crack the phone". What they want >>>>>>>>>>is >>>>>>>>>>for apple to produce a signed firmware image of the IOS operating >>>>>>>>>>software with one OS modification, such that it doesn't zap the >>>>>decryption >>>>>>>>>>key after 10 invalid PIN's. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Once the image is installed, the FBI can brute force the PIN. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>And probably find zilch. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Tim Cook, Apple CEO >>>>>>>>>"We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we >>>>>>>>>believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done >>>>>>>>>everything that is both within our power and within the law to help >>>>>>>>>them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we >>>>>>>>>simply >>>>>>>>>do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. >>>>>>>>>They >>>>>>>>>have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone." >>>>>>>>>http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/17/tim-cook-apple-wont-create-backdoor-t > o- >>>un >>>>>lock-san-bernardino-attackers-iphone/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He's using hyperbole, of course. >>>>>>>Well, >>>>>>>Did the FBI make any request regarding future access to a locked >>>>>>>iphone ? >>>>>>>If not, Cook is flat out lying. >>>>>>>If they did, was it as represented by Cook - ie the ability for the >>>>>>>FBI to access data in anyones iphone - aka backdoor. >>>>>>>If not - it is open the the FBI correct what Cook stated. >>>>>>>I believe Cook. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Carl Goldsworthy >>>>>>>... >>>>>>>In a "zero sum game" there are no winners. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't believe either of them. >>>>> >>>>>Of course; they're in the throes of a lawsuit. However, consider >>>>>the virus which wrecked Iran's centrifuges. It was designed to >>>>>apply to only that one site but is now out in the world. Any >>>>>software which Apple develops and hands to the FBI or NSA to >>>>>crack any security will be out on the web and getting used >>>>>by the very people the FBI/NSA want to stop. >>>>> >>>>>A general cracking mechanism should not be given out. It will >>>>>happen soon enough. The FBI can use the technique described >>>>>in this newsgroup to access the data on that, and only that, >>>>>particular phone. >>>>> >>>>>people are using their phones to manage all of their assets. >>>>>if the method of cracking into the phone is availabe, all >>>>>of their wealth can be transferred to some entity--a terrorism >>>>>group or government. >>>>> >>>>>/BAH >>>> >>>> Anyone who does bank or other money transactions on an unsecure device >>>> like a telephone is a fool that is going to be bitten and then feel a >>>> great amount of shock. >>> >>>If cracking code is produced, noone will be able to tell if their device >>>is secure. So far, only Apple's marketing assures security. If they >>>have to provide a general cracking code to law enforcement, noone's >>>phone is secure. >>> >>>I understand your thinking and I would agree except this is not >>>about accessing that one phone. The Apple vs FBI lawsuits have >>>to do with making every phone accessible. >>> >>> >>>/BAH >> >> Thing is, hackers probably already have a means to get into the >> iPhones inspite of Apple's claims the phones are secure. > > That's possible. However, I would not llike to have an Apple > version roaming around the world available to anyone who > wants to make a mess. That can't happen given that the OS has to have been signed by Apple for it to be able to install on iphones. Apple currently stops signing older versions of iOS quite soon after a new one has been released, so that if you want to return to using an older version after you decide you don’t like something about the new version, you have to make that decision within a couple of weeks of trying the new version. If you wait longer than that, you're stuck with the new version and can't go back. Apple could do the same thing with the modified iOS that the FBI wants to install on that phone and it would then be unusable by anyone else in a day if they stop signing it that quickly. > An Apple version wouldn't have bugs All Apple versions have bugs, just like with any other OS. > and would have all the intimate knowledge needed to do any > cracking. It isnt doing any cracking, it is JUST no longer wiping the data on the phone if whoever has the phone in their hands supplies the wrong passcode 10 times in a row. The FBI wants to try and brute force the passcode by trying all the possibilities etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ibmekon <Ibmekon> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 19:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nt3kcbh2ls3bib3kn5egbtfmlubb5uoemv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #160037 |
On 21 Feb 2016 15:48:24 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >If cracking code is produced, noone will be able to tell if their device >is secure. So far, only Apple's marketing assures security. If they >have to provide a general cracking code to law enforcement, noone's >phone is secure. > >I understand your thinking and I would agree except this is not >about accessing that one phone. The Apple vs FBI lawsuits have >to do with making every phone accessible. > By way of a remarkable coincidence - I read that Apple PAY was officially launched in China on the same day the judge made his order to Apple, and Cook made his defence. My guess is that the whole thing was a PR stunt, Kibuki. The real action happens in private courts with thw NSA, under non disclosure orders from the judge. It has been suggested that China will demand any facility made available to the FBI also be given to them. Oh what joy. Carl Goldsworthy -- In a "zero sum game" there are no winners.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 16:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <LgHxy.5422$hN1.1586@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #159788 |
Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:48:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >wrote: >>>Tim Cook, Apple CEO >>>"We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we >>>believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done >>>everything that is both within our power and within the law to help >>>them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply >>>do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They >>>have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone." >>>http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/17/tim-cook-apple-wont-create-backdoor-to-unlock-san-bernardino-attackers-iphone/ >>> >> >> He's using hyperbole, of course. >Well, >Did the FBI make any request regarding future access to a locked >iphone ? >If not, Cook is flat out lying. >If they did, was it as represented by Cook - ie the ability for the >FBI to access data in anyones iphone - aka backdoor. >If not - it is open the the FBI correct what Cook stated. >I believe Cook. Cook is crafting (and rightly) a slippery slope argument. Peter Trei has a well written article about this over at rec.arts.sf.written. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.sf.written/lxXv844FyyQ/CM-IZDHKAwAJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 18:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8a97c9e2-8f06-45bc-8f86-4b03f6186e06@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159808 |
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 11:19:57 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Cook is crafting (and rightly) a slippery slope argument. "Slippery slopes" are tricky things. People use them to block all sorts of things, sometimes jusitifed, but sometimes not. If we always worried about them, we'd never get anything done. Rather, when a "slippery slope" is brought up, we need to examine closely how slippery and steep the slope actually is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 18:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e122afc5-e96c-4d4d-af86-4a23da62b522@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159808 |
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 11:19:57 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Peter Trei has a well written article about this over at rec.arts.sf.written. > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.sf.written/lxXv844FyyQ/CM-IZDHKAwAJ I looked at wrote he wrote and do not agree with it: >Strong encryption in wide civilian use a actually a new thing under the sun, Criminals have been using various ways of "encryption" forever, such as physical destruction of data, and law enforcement has been playing catch up. Some of the other posters in that thread did raise a good argument that new tools won't just be used for their stated purposes--e.g. to catch terrorists about to mass murder all of us--but other criminals, too. Given how the Patriot Act has been utilized, the record isn't good.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 18:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnncemki.3l1.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #159788 |
On 2016-02-19, Ibmekon <Ibmekon> wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:48:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) > wrote: > >>Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>>"We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we >>>believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done >>>everything that is both within our power and within the law to help >>>them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply >>>do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They >>>have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone." >>>http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/17/tim-cook-apple-wont-create-backdoor-to-unlock-san-bernardino-attackers-iphone/ >>> >> >> He's using hyperbole, of course. > Well, > Did the FBI make any request regarding future access to a locked > iphone ? > If not, Cook is flat out lying. > If they did, was it as represented by Cook - ie the ability for the > FBI to access data in anyones iphone - aka backdoor. > If not - it is open the the FBI correct what Cook stated. > I believe Cook. > Funny story in current `Private Eye', a man was admitted to a hospital in Auckland (presumably NZ), with an eel up his rectum, it was removed, but word went round the hospital, and it was discovered that `unauthorized' people were accessing his records, about 48. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ibmekon <Ibmekon> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 21:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ov0fcb1an2ph4dklo2jptjtj7e7ni0vcoj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159826 |
On 19 Feb 2016 18:10:46 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote: >On 2016-02-19, Ibmekon <Ibmekon> wrote: <snip> >> Well, >> Did the FBI make any request regarding future access to a locked >> iphone ? >> If not, Cook is flat out lying. >> If they did, was it as represented by Cook - ie the ability for the >> FBI to access data in anyones iphone - aka backdoor. >> If not - it is open the the FBI correct what Cook stated. >> I believe Cook. >> > >Funny story in current `Private Eye', a man was admitted to a hospital >in Auckland (presumably NZ), with an eel up his rectum, it was removed, >but word went round the hospital, and it was discovered that `unauthorized' >people were accessing his records, about 48. Did the rounds, so to speak. Frightening though to consider, Snowden suggested that some 4 million Americans, maybe half a million contractors, had security clearance to read all the worlds emails. Hard to imagine that the odd person did not read the odd bank account number, password etc and sell it on. Next day, your bank account is empty - and the bank deny liability - citing unbreakable security - saying you must have given your details to the thief. Carl Goldsworthy -- In a "zero sum game" there are no winners.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 09:52 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dipl08F3kq0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159852 |
<Ibmekon> wrote in message news:ov0fcb1an2ph4dklo2jptjtj7e7ni0vcoj@4ax.com... > On 19 Feb 2016 18:10:46 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote: > >>On 2016-02-19, Ibmekon <Ibmekon> wrote: > <snip> >>> Well, >>> Did the FBI make any request regarding future access to a locked >>> iphone ? >>> If not, Cook is flat out lying. >>> If they did, was it as represented by Cook - ie the ability for the >>> FBI to access data in anyones iphone - aka backdoor. >>> If not - it is open the the FBI correct what Cook stated. >>> I believe Cook. >>> >> >>Funny story in current `Private Eye', a man was admitted to a hospital >>in Auckland (presumably NZ), with an eel up his rectum, it was removed, >>but word went round the hospital, and it was discovered that >>`unauthorized' >>people were accessing his records, about 48. > > Did the rounds, so to speak. > > Frightening though to consider, Snowden suggested that some 4 million > Americans, maybe half a million contractors, had security clearance to > read all the worlds emails. > Hard to imagine that the odd person did not read the odd bank account > number, password etc and sell it on. > Next day, your bank account is empty - and the bank deny liability - > citing unbreakable security - saying you must have given your details > to the thief. And yet we don't in fact know anyone that has ever happened to, so it's just another boogyman story.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 16:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87ziuw5hie.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #159852 |
Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: > Frightening though to consider, Snowden suggested that some 4 million > Americans, maybe half a million contractors, had security clearance to > read all the worlds emails. part of the problem was Snowden was an employee of private-equity (former AMEX president and former head of IBM, left IBM to head up the private equity entity) subsidiary and security clearances and background checks had been outsourced to other private-equity subsidiaries ... which were found to just filling out paperwork and not actually doing background checks. Private-equity subsidiaries have been found to be under enormous pressure to generate money every way possible. recently still 70% of the budget and over half the employees: http://www.investingdaily.com/17693/spies-like-us/ -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 18:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <lnoccbptuehv8m6v8op1gmk41kou9me6ei@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159709 |
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 19:21:13 +0000, Ibmekon <Ibmekon> wrote: >On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:41:00 -0700, Peter Flass ><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > ><redacted> > >>Look at the current Apple vs. FBI dustup. Apparently the FBI expects Apple >>to develop code to break the encryption on an iPhone. I think I come down >>on the side of privacy, but the other side has some valid arguments too. > >It seems to me that the FBA wish to bring Apple into line with their >policy of scrapping all personal privacy. > >If Apple argues it is simply impossible to crack the phone - the FBI >will create legislation to make it illegal - citing this case. > >If Apple argues it is possible to crack the phone, but very difficult >and expensive - the FBI will suggest they make it easier on themselves >in future by installing an "FBI Only" back door. > >If Apple argues it is possible to crack the phone, but it will damage >their reputation and sales - the FBI will promise to only use the tech >solution "in matters of national security". >And suggest judicial agreement that in future they can make direct >demands in secret to Apple - to shield Apple from customers anger. Well, when I first looked at the Apple ][+ computer, nice machine, and learned Apple's feelings toward the end user, I took a dislike to Apple that hasn't gone away. Apple could help, and upgrade the OS in such a way as the backdoor only works with the one iPhone that needs to be cracked. But publically run around in circles saying all is doomed. Oh wait, they are running around in circles now. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052C0B80E9304B@aca4282e.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #159597 |
Walter Banks wrote: > On 17/02/2016 1:07 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> >> Furthermore, for many people (not just IT staff) security is just a >> way of giving yourself the warm fuzzies. It doesn't matter whether >> the measures are effective; what matters is the warm glow you get >> from the > knowledge that >> Something Has Been Done. >> >> Security is difficult to measure, so many people fall back on a >> totally inappropriate metric: how much it inconveniences legitimate >> users. >> > Hard security has a lot of legislative opposition. Look at the problems > RIM/BLACKBERRY ran into in many countries because there wasn't a > backdoor to their encryption. > > Phil Zimmermann (author of PGP fame) at a conference I was at described > a police conversation where the police couldn't believe that he didn't > have a secret backdoor or the knowledge to break his own encryption > algorithm to help them solve a child porn case. and look at what Apple is fighting right now. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 05:32 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dimh2qF9fd2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159664 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052C0B80E9304B@aca4282e.ipt.aol.com... > Walter Banks wrote: >> On 17/02/2016 1:07 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> >>> Furthermore, for many people (not just IT staff) security is just a >>> way of giving yourself the warm fuzzies. It doesn't matter whether >>> the measures are effective; what matters is the warm glow you get >>> from the >> knowledge that >>> Something Has Been Done. >>> >>> Security is difficult to measure, so many people fall back on a >>> totally inappropriate metric: how much it inconveniences legitimate >>> users. >>> >> Hard security has a lot of legislative opposition. Look at the problems >> RIM/BLACKBERRY ran into in many countries because there wasn't a >> backdoor to their encryption. >> >> Phil Zimmermann (author of PGP fame) at a conference I was at described >> a police conversation where the police couldn't believe that he didn't >> have a secret backdoor or the knowledge to break his own encryption >> algorithm to help them solve a child porn case. > > and look at what Apple is fighting right now. Different matter entirely. The court is requiring Apple to do what is perfectly possible for Apple to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 11:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <3fa9cbd79i4tkm6j2gfes78muc3glc4nj5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159501 |
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:54:19 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 11:37:11 AM UTC-5, Osmium wrote: >> 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 the I.T. industry needs to do a lot more to secure >its networks from malware. We've had so many instances of this sort of >thing, like the Target attack. Individuals get sabotaged all the time. The problem isn't with all IT... but there are 'security tixes' that look good, but don't accomlish anything. Management is also part of the problem. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 17:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160216125624@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159496 |
On 2016-02-16, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: > 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? There are already industry certifications available. Of course with these there is no payoff to the government mafia so it would not suprise me to see them make a move of this type. 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. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.) NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 14:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <dihej9F7miU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159504 |
"Roger Blake" wrote: > On 2016-02-16, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >> 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? > > There are already industry certifications available. Of course with > these there is no payoff to the government mafia so it would not > suprise me to see them make a move of this type. > > 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. 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? 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. .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 03:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <na0q7f22ist@news7.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #159512 |
On 2016-02-16, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: > "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. > > 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. > 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> It all boils down to one word: convenience. As any marketroid can tell you, that trumps everything. -- /~\ 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 | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 08:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <diinu7F9mlqU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159561 |
On 2016-02-17, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> And just the other day I saw an ad in a local paper for a course showing
> lusers how to use the Cloud. <shudder>
>
> It all boils down to one word: convenience. As any marketroid can tell you,
> that trumps everything.
Precisely.
--
I don't have an attitude problem. If you have a problem with my
attitude, that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web