Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #33614 > unrolled thread
| Started by | 166p1 <z24ba6.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-11-10 00:21 -0500 |
| Last post | 2021-11-13 18:20 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 61 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS 166p1 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-10 00:21 -0500
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-11-09 21:38 -0800
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS 166p1 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-10 20:46 -0500
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-11-10 18:42 -0800
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS 166p1 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-11 20:22 -0500
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-11-11 20:38 -0800
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS 166p1 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-12 23:45 -0500
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-11-12 22:00 -0800
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS 166p1 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-14 23:09 -0500
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-11-14 21:08 -0800
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-11-15 13:05 -0500
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-11-20 09:30 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-11-20 12:43 -0500
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS 166p1 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-17 01:23 -0500
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2021-11-17 14:25 +0100
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS 166p1 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-20 01:17 -0500
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> - 2021-11-16 12:02 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2021-11-16 13:39 -0500
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-11-16 16:19 -0500
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS 166p1 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-17 01:29 -0500
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-17 17:28 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-18 07:57 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS 166p1 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-20 00:14 -0500
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-11-17 13:20 -0500
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-11-17 11:26 -0800
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS 166p1 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-20 00:41 -0500
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-11-20 09:38 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> - 2021-11-18 10:02 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-11-18 12:09 -0500
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-13 08:22 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-13 19:51 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-11-13 12:40 -0800
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-11-12 16:12 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-12 17:57 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-12 19:41 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-11-13 11:06 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-13 11:53 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-11-13 15:14 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> - 2021-11-14 15:25 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-11-20 09:13 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> - 2021-11-20 15:38 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-11-21 09:04 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS 166p1 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-21 12:38 -0500
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> - 2021-11-26 09:02 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-26 11:46 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS 166p1 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-27 00:21 -0500
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-11-27 09:33 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-27 09:39 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-11-27 10:07 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-27 11:27 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-11-27 09:17 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-11-27 09:07 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> - 2021-11-21 16:45 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-11-21 11:22 -0800
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS 166p1 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-22 00:43 -0500
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-11-27 09:40 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-11-13 10:56 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-13 11:45 +0000
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-11-12 03:16 -0500
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-11-27 09:49 -0800
Re: Wow - Now Even COL.M - No Posts For DAYS Steve Mysterious <tinker123@gmail.com> - 2021-11-13 18:20 -0800
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-17 17:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dZalJ.84368$AJ2.10665@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #33653 |
On 2021-11-17, 166p1 <z24ba6.net> wrote: > On 11/16/21 4:19 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > >> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:02:26 +0000, Eric Pozharski wrote: >> >>> Yup, just today got another .xlsb (what .xlsb is anyway?) to check with >>> Virustotal. Not to be proud or something but this year I was first to >>> upload twice. >> >> Those in my opinion are not malicious but contain information how to >> contact the scammer. Am interested. If you still have it, could you put >> it into an encrypted ZIP file (that the mail ISP cannot check against a >> database of scammy files), email it to me (address is valid) and tell me >> the password you gave the ZIP file? I'll have a look what's inside then. > > Is there a usenet group dedicated to e-mail scams and how > to spot them ? If not, there OUGHT to be. > > This has become a PLAGUE of late. How to spot the tricks > and, most importantly, how to keep Joe User from just > automatically clicking those links ........ > > I'd far rather check 100 iffy e-mails than have to restore > dozens of PCs after a ransomware attack. Been there .... Yup. It's amazing how much a little bit of common sense can avoid these mishaps. If I see a message claiming to be from a long-lost friend, or one that promises the world if I just click on this button here, the first thing I do is to check the from address. A lot of scammers don't even try to disguise it, and seeing a suffix like .ru or .tw is a dead giveaway. Also, I'll hover my mouse over the magic button and see what URL comes up on the status line; again, anything funny here signals danger. Plus there's the message text itself. If the message were really from a friend, you'd recognize the style. But even with strangers, the kinds of broken English in many scam messages should set off alarm bells. Worst case, I'll use Thunderbird's "view source" option to look at the actual contents of the message. There can be lots of interesting goodies on display there. If someone claims to be using your webcam to spy on you, are his threats really credible if your machine doesn't even have a webcam to begin with? The trouble with all these techniques is that they require time and care to use. In a world where convenience trumps everything, most people would rather risk being compromised than take the few seconds it needs to check things out. Too bad "common sense" is such a misnomer... -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult. X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy. / \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-18 07:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sn5117$lld$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33655 |
On 17/11/2021 17:28, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > Worst case, I'll use Thunderbird's "view source" option > to look at the actual contents of the message. There > can be lots of interesting goodies on display there. hilariously, I got an email from a webserver advertising web design, hosted by a vpn supplier in the ISA. I forwarded it to abuse@vpnsupplier.com with a note saying it was against their stated usage policy. It was rejected as containing harmful material :-) -- "What do you think about Gay Marriage?" "I don't." "Don't what?" "Think about Gay Marriage."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 166p1 <z24ba6.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-20 00:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <R--dnXpGpuyDGQX8nZ2dnUU7-VfNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33655 |
On 11/17/21 12:28 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2021-11-17, 166p1 <z24ba6.net> wrote: > >> On 11/16/21 4:19 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:02:26 +0000, Eric Pozharski wrote: >>> >>>> Yup, just today got another .xlsb (what .xlsb is anyway?) to check with >>>> Virustotal. Not to be proud or something but this year I was first to >>>> upload twice. >>> >>> Those in my opinion are not malicious but contain information how to >>> contact the scammer. Am interested. If you still have it, could you put >>> it into an encrypted ZIP file (that the mail ISP cannot check against a >>> database of scammy files), email it to me (address is valid) and tell me >>> the password you gave the ZIP file? I'll have a look what's inside then. >> >> Is there a usenet group dedicated to e-mail scams and how >> to spot them ? If not, there OUGHT to be. >> >> This has become a PLAGUE of late. How to spot the tricks >> and, most importantly, how to keep Joe User from just >> automatically clicking those links ........ >> >> I'd far rather check 100 iffy e-mails than have to restore >> dozens of PCs after a ransomware attack. Been there .... > > Yup. It's amazing how much a little bit of common sense can > avoid these mishaps. > > If I see a message claiming to be from a long-lost friend, > or one that promises the world if I just click on this button > here, the first thing I do is to check the from address. > A lot of scammers don't even try to disguise it, and seeing > a suffix like .ru or .tw is a dead giveaway. Also, I'll hover > my mouse over the magic button and see what URL comes up on > the status line; again, anything funny here signals danger. Every time I find a bad one, I mail everybody THAT it's bad AND include a non-preachy little summary of WHY it's bad ... including things like links to Russia or mystery foreign addresses, non-existent companies, really vague and general content, odd spelling and grammar. The last bunch had South African links. By not getting preachy it's possible to EDUCATE - give them more clues to look for in the NEXT scam mail. > Plus there's the message text itself. If the message were > really from a friend, youy'd recognize the style. But even > with strangers, the kinds of broken English in many scam > messages should set off alarm bells. > > Worst case, I'll use Thunderbird's "view source" option > to look at the actual contents of the message. There > can be lots of interesting goodies on display there. > > If someone claims to be using your webcam to spy on you, > are his threats really credible if your machine doesn't > even have a webcam to begin with? > > The trouble with all these techniques is that they require > time and care to use. In a world where convenience trumps > everything, most people would rather risk being compromised > than take the few seconds it needs to check things out. > > Too bad "common sense" is such a misnomer... The IMPULSE is to just click the inviting link, BELIEVE what's in the mail. Despite contrarians, humans ARE generally optimistic and trusting. The scammers KNOW this, it's how they make their money ..... Anyway, within a small/medium environment is IS possible to inject some skepticism and educate about the signs of a scam mail. Really BIG orgs though - yer screwed. For sure SOMEBODY will be fooled. LibreOffice and Linux VMs are REALLY valuable tools. You can open weird mails in a protected environment, with ClamAV, plus open MS files and PDFs with non MS apps that won't automatically run all the macros and aren't binary-compatible with Winders. Once in a while you even need to use GHex or equiv to put a microscope on things. Meanwhile, on the Winders boxes, Norton IS pretty good and I'd rec ZoneAlarm Anti-Ransomware thrown in underneath as well. Won't save you against all stupidity but it's better than nothing. Layered, detailed, daily backups - online, offline and layered - are the other half of the equation. Oh, and those backups should be done on Linux/BSD boxes :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-17 13:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87bl2iod8r.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #33653 |
On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 01:29:22 -0500, 166p1 <z24ba6.net> wrote: > > On 11/16/21 4:19 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:02:26 +0000, Eric Pozharski wrote: >>> >>> Yup, just today got another .xlsb (what .xlsb is anyway?) to check with >>> Virustotal. Not to be proud or something but this year I was first to >>> upload twice. >> Those in my opinion are not malicious but contain information how to >> contact the scammer. Am interested. If you still have it, could you put >> it into an encrypted ZIP file (that the mail ISP cannot check against a >> database of scammy files), email it to me (address is valid) and tell me >> the password you gave the ZIP file? I'll have a look what's inside then. > > Is there a usenet group dedicated to e-mail scams and how > to spot them ? If not, there OUGHT to be. There is a group for mail spam <news:news.admin.net-abuse.email>. Please consider to set a follow-up there if you want to continue to discuss email scam. But consider the target audience of this scam does not read (or know about) in the usenet. It doesn't make sense to post rules "how to not get scammed" there. It's better put on a web page that people would find it there. But the target audience doesn't look up information (like a (even if fake) email address) coming with this scam. > This has become a PLAGUE of late. How to spot the tricks > and, most importantly, how to keep Joe User from just > automatically clicking those links ........ I don't think that is possible, or ever will. It might work to an ad on TV or Facebook to make people understand. But who's paying for the ad? -- Andreas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-17 11:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <sn3l1r$nur$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33656 |
On 11/17/21 10:20, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 01:29:22 -0500, 166p1 <z24ba6.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/16/21 4:19 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:02:26 +0000, Eric Pozharski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yup, just today got another .xlsb (what .xlsb is anyway?) to check with
>>>> Virustotal. Not to be proud or something but this year I was first to
>>>> upload twice.
>>> Those in my opinion are not malicious but contain information how to
>>> contact the scammer. Am interested. If you still have it, could you put
>>> it into an encrypted ZIP file (that the mail ISP cannot check against a
>>> database of scammy files), email it to me (address is valid) and tell me
>>> the password you gave the ZIP file? I'll have a look what's inside then.
>>
>> Is there a usenet group dedicated to e-mail scams and how
>> to spot them ? If not, there OUGHT to be.
>
> There is a group for mail spam <news:news.admin.net-abuse.email>. Please
> consider to set a follow-up there if you want to continue to discuss
> email scam.
>
> But consider the target audience of this scam does not read (or know
> about) in the usenet. It doesn't make sense to post rules "how to not get
> scammed" there.
>
> It's better put on a web page that people would find it there. But the
> target audience doesn't look up information (like a (even if fake) email
> address) coming with this scam.
>
>> This has become a PLAGUE of late. How to spot the tricks
>> and, most importantly, how to keep Joe User from just
>> automatically clicking those links ........
Of Late my foot! It has been a plague since BBS days.
Because my phone has been advertised as a contact for several
organization over the years the trash calls have always been bad for
the last 40 years.
>
> I don't think that is possible, or ever will. It might work to an ad on
> TV or Facebook to make people understand. But who's paying for the ad?
>
The Better Business Bureau should do that maybe with assistance from a
government agency.
It is very hard to get people to pay attention to simple
matters but if it looks too good to be true it may be a lie.
bliss81 - brought to you by the power and ease of PCLinuxOS
and a minor case of hypergraphia
--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 166p1 <z24ba6.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-20 00:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7KGdnUdDFLYLFwX8nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33657 |
On 11/17/21 2:26 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > On 11/17/21 10:20, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >> On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 01:29:22 -0500, 166p1 <z24ba6.net> wrote: >>> >>> On 11/16/21 4:19 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >>>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:02:26 +0000, Eric Pozharski wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yup, just today got another .xlsb (what .xlsb is anyway?) to check >>>>> with >>>>> Virustotal. Not to be proud or something but this year I was first to >>>>> upload twice. >>>> Those in my opinion are not malicious but contain information how to >>>> contact the scammer. Am interested. If you still have it, could you put >>>> it into an encrypted ZIP file (that the mail ISP cannot check against a >>>> database of scammy files), email it to me (address is valid) and >>>> tell me >>>> the password you gave the ZIP file? I'll have a look what's inside >>>> then. >>> >>> Is there a usenet group dedicated to e-mail scams and how >>> to spot them ? If not, there OUGHT to be. >> >> There is a group for mail spam <news:news.admin.net-abuse.email>. Please >> consider to set a follow-up there if you want to continue to discuss >> email scam. Noted, thanks. However Linux is a VERY useful tool for sysadmins to examine/autopsy suspicious mails. >> consider the target audience of this scam does not read (or know >> about) in the usenet. It doesn't make sense to post rules "how to not get >> scammed" there. >> >> It's better put on a web page that people would find it there. But the >> target audience doesn't look up information (like a (even if fake) email >> address) coming with this scam. >> >>> This has become a PLAGUE of late. How to spot the tricks >>> and, most importantly, how to keep Joe User from just >>> automatically clicking those links ........ > > Of Late my foot! It has been a plague since BBS days. Yes, I remember the Pakistani Brain Virus :-) EXTREMELY clever for the time. DID take a little while to download over a 300 baud acoustic modem though ! However those were easy to detect. TODAYS stuff is both more sophisticated and in VASTLY greater volume. Self- mutating code to dodge signature recognition. Deeply buried malware in BIG html/javascript/php/attachments. It's gone from "occasional annoyance" to "extreme and constant threat". In the end, always PREPARE for the worst. Make mirror backups of every box, Macrium or something, and LOTS of layered backups online and off. It's the diff between being back up in six hours, six weeks, or just never. "ConvenienceWare" like SolarWinds is bad biz too. The IDEA is to be cheap - a lot fewer sysadmins, a few can remotely manage lots of boxes. As we've seen however, it's ALSO a conduit so bad actors can DESTROY mass quantities of systems very efficiently. A IT company once wondered why I didn't set up Winders boxes so I could push updates to all at once - SO much more convenient. Well .... Once I'm retired someone WILL set up all the boxes that way - and, soon enough, KaBOOM. Then their lawyers will deny responsibility, some obscure wording WAY down in the contract ....... threat". > Because my phone has been advertised as a contact for several > organization over the years the trash calls have always been bad for > the last 40 years. A reason I never publish such data :-) >> I don't think that is possible, or ever will. It might work to an ad on >> TV or Facebook to make people understand. But who's paying for the ad? >> > > The Better Business Bureau should do that maybe with assistance > from a government agency. The money/authority/politics might be too difficult. > It is very hard to get people to pay attention to simple > matters but if it looks too good to be true it may be a lie. 99% chance it's a deadly lie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-20 09:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnsphghc.1ap.sc@scarpet42p.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #33653 |
Le 17-11-2021, 166p1 <z24ba6.net> a écrit : > > Is there a usenet group dedicated to e-mail scams and how > to spot them ? If not, there OUGHT to be. To spot them, the most important thing is to use your brain. Do you really believe someone, who has no reason to have heard about you, will chose _you_ to give you a lot of money. You never plays and win lottery? You never sold anything and received an invoice? No need to look further. At the end of the first 10 lines of your message I knew it was scam, there was no need to analyse anything. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-18 10:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnspc95l.cq.whynot@orphan.zombinet> |
| In reply to | #33651 |
with <875ysrpzmi.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:02:26 +0000, Eric Pozharski wrote: >> Yup, just today got another .xlsb (what .xlsb is anyway?) to check >> with Virustotal. Not to be proud or something but this year I was >> first to upload twice. > > Those in my opinion are not malicious but contain information how to > contact the scammer. I know what you're talking about, but in this case it was TrojanDownloader:O97M/EncDoc.PMSJ!MTB (whatever that means in Defender-speak, if it was defender). > Am interested. If you still have it, could you put it into an > encrypted ZIP file (that the mail ISP cannot check against a database > of scammy files), email it to me (address is valid) and tell me the > password you gave the ZIP file? I'll have a look what's inside then. For multiple reasons, I'm not doing it. -- Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-18 12:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87a6i1mlvf.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #33664 |
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 10:02:29 +0000, Eric Pozharski wrote: > > with <875ysrpzmi.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > >> Am interested. If you still have it, could you put it into an >> encrypted ZIP file (that the mail ISP cannot check against a database >> of scammy files), email it to me (address is valid) and tell me the >> password you gave the ZIP file? I'll have a look what's inside then. > > For multiple reasons, I'm not doing it. If it's sorted that it was a Trojan I'm no longer interested. -- Andreas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-13 08:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <smnsjh$ih7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33630 |
On 13/11/2021 04:45, 166p1 wrote:
>>
>> Windows 11 even forces you to use Edge.
>> <https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/12/huawei_euler_os_foss/?td=keepreading-btm>
>
>
>
> "Forces" ? Can't install Chrome or FFox ??? Somehow
> I doubt that. There would be lawsuits - anti-trust
> actions.
My bank account share trading section at one time *forced* me to not use
Linux. Dunno how they did it, but every time I tried *any* browser on
Linux to access a part of it, including setting the ID string to say I
was in fact on Windows, they would tell me my browser was out of date.
In the end I used Firefox on XP in a virtual machine, until they fixed
ONE instance of the bug enough to provide ONE route that didn't trigger
the warning.
After 5 years their utter lack of support and communication trying to
transfer some shares into the share trading account forced me to leave
them entirely.
The bigger the organisation the more contempt they treat their customers
with, AFAICT.
--
"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and
higher education positively fortifies it."
- Stephen Vizinczey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-13 19:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PGUjJ.28971$IB7.4228@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #33630 |
On 2021-11-13, 166p1 <z24ba6.net> wrote: > On 11/11/21 11:38 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > >> Windows 11 even forces you to use Edge. >> <https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/12/huawei_euler_os_foss/?td=keepreading-btm> > > "Forces" ? Can't install Chrome or FFox ??? Somehow > I doubt that. There would be lawsuits - anti-trust > actions. Besides, they don't have to force you - they've delegated that task to web page designers. People around me know when I've hit such a page because I start muttering about "digital racism" when my browser is discriminated against. > Now IE ... that's WAY out of date and you shouldn't > use it under any circumstances - indeed you shouldn't > have used it under any circumstances even when it > was current .... Ah yes, "Internet Exploder"... >> I had that on one of the few new machines I bought >> in the last 17 years. It had none of the endearingly naive >> qualities of XP. I should have erased it but I wanted to >> learn about GPT and UEFI. At one point I had about 6 different >> but not that much Linux distributions installed on a 6420, > > I preferred Win-2K actually. Still have it on a VM. > XP was too "busy" for my likes :-) Yes, but 2K's drivers weren't nearly as good. > The more 'eye candy' the less I like it. For those times when I have to use Windows, I run XP under VirtualBox. If you go into the appearance settings and select "Classic" you can get rid of the Fisher-Price look. IMHO Windows' usability peaked somewhere between 2000 and XP and has been going downhill ever since. >> I settle for Linux with built-in firewall. > > Good choice. Works fine for anything but a net-facing > router or web server. > >> It seems to work. I mean I get about 5 phishing calls >> per day on my landline. If they could hack in they would >> not waste time on calling. > > Every so often I get fake "MS Tech" calls - saying > my Winders has a horrible flaw they need to fix. > I like to go along with them for a little while ... > keep 'em tied up .... > > Because I *have no* Winders box :-) > > "Uh ... tell me ... where DO you find this product > number thing you're talking about ... " I occasionally get calls claiming that they've hacked my webcam and caught me reading porn sites, and demanding several hundred euros in ransom. My machine doesn't even have a webcam... -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Life is perverse. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | It can be beautiful - X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | but it won't. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lily Tomlin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-13 12:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <smp7s3$iun$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33639 |
On 11/13/21 11:51, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2021-11-13, 166p1 <z24ba6.net> wrote: > >> On 11/11/21 11:38 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote: >> >>> Windows 11 even forces you to use Edge. >>> <https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/12/huawei_euler_os_foss/?td=keepreading-btm> >> >> "Forces" ? Can't install Chrome or FFox ??? Somehow >> I doubt that. There would be lawsuits - anti-trust >> actions. > > Besides, they don't have to force you - they've delegated > that task to web page designers. People around me know > when I've hit such a page because I start muttering about > "digital racism" when my browser is discriminated against. > >> Now IE ... that's WAY out of date and you shouldn't >> use it under any circumstances - indeed you shouldn't >> have used it under any circumstances even when it >> was current .... > > Ah yes, "Internet Exploder"... > >>> I had that on one of the few new machines I bought >>> in the last 17 years. It had none of the endearingly naive >>> qualities of XP. I should have erased it but I wanted to >>> learn about GPT and UEFI. At one point I had about 6 different >>> but not that much Linux distributions installed on a 6420, >> >> I preferred Win-2K actually. Still have it on a VM. >> XP was too "busy" for my likes :-) > > Yes, but 2K's drivers weren't nearly as good. > >> The more 'eye candy' the less I like it. > > For those times when I have to use Windows, I run XP under > VirtualBox. If you go into the appearance settings and > select "Classic" you can get rid of the Fisher-Price look. > > IMHO Windows' usability peaked somewhere between 2000 and XP > and has been going downhill ever since. > >>> I settle for Linux with built-in firewall. >> >> Good choice. Works fine for anything but a net-facing >> router or web server. >> >>> It seems to work. I mean I get about 5 phishing calls >>> per day on my landline. If they could hack in they would >>> not waste time on calling. >> >> Every so often I get fake "MS Tech" calls - saying >> my Winders has a horrible flaw they need to fix. >> I like to go along with them for a little while ... >> keep 'em tied up .... >> >> Because I *have no* Winders box :-) >> >> "Uh ... tell me ... where DO you find this product >> number thing you're talking about ... " > > I occasionally get calls claiming that they've hacked my > webcam and caught me reading porn sites, and demanding > several hundred euros in ransom. My machine doesn't > even have a webcam... > ` If we continue in this vein we should change the subject to "Horrible communications we get". I get email every so often threatening to expose my choice of porn to my friends and the world with video taken by my Web camera of my reaction to such. My reaction of course is to close any windows or tabs showing anything my mother, a terrible prudish woman, would NOT want me to see. Actually I was 30 in the 1960s and had alread participated in things that some folks would find the description of pornographic. So porn has little attraction for me because it won't bring back my ill-spent youth. Also I have not repaired the camera on the machine I was using at the time. But a lot of people apparently do use the computer for erotic stimulation so a piece of nonsense like this sent out to lot of people might be worth the effort for the sort of people who think only of sex and money. bliss-brought to you by the power and ease of PCLinuxOS and a minor case of Hypergraphia -- bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-12 16:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnsot4jd.oir.sc@scarpet42p.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #33622 |
Le 12-11-2021, 166p1 <z24ba6.net> a écrit : > GUI tools can accomplish in minutes what would take hours to do in > tweaking dozens of config files with a text editor Do you have an example of task better handled by a GUI than by a text editor or by the command line? > (or 'vi' if you're REALLY a retro masochist). It's not retro, the neovide's cursor is the cursor of the futur. On day every text editor will ended imitate it. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-12 17:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <smm9ue$jt9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33626 |
On 12/11/2021 16:12, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > Le 12-11-2021, 166p1 <z24ba6.net> a écrit : >> GUI tools can accomplish in minutes what would take hours to do in >> tweaking dozens of config files with a text editor > > Do you have an example of task better handled by a GUI than by a text > editor or by the command line? Well 3D CAD is a bit hard on a command line. In fact even 2D cad is. Heck even code editing benefits from highlighting and section collapsing I use whichever works better, frankly. In general since my GUI don't run as root, I do rootish things in a root console But the heavy lifting is done in a GUI i,.e. source editing - than use a terminal to run 'make' and a 'sudo make install' to get the binaries in place. > >> (or 'vi' if you're REALLY a retro masochist). > > It's not retro, the neovide's cursor is the cursor of the futur. On day > every text editor will ended imitate it. > -- The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about. Anon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-12 19:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vrzjJ.96667$IW4.5948@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #33627 |
On 2021-11-12, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 12/11/2021 16:12, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > >> Le 12-11-2021, 166p1 <z24ba6.net> a écrit : >> >>> GUI tools can accomplish in minutes what would take hours to do in >>> tweaking dozens of config files with a text editor >> >> Do you have an example of task better handled by a GUI than by a text >> editor or by the command line? > > Well 3D CAD is a bit hard on a command line. In fact even 2D cad is. > Heck even code editing benefits from highlighting and section collapsing > I use whichever works better, frankly. Exactly. And some tasks can be done well with either a CLI or a GUI. Some people prefer one, some prefer the other. > In general since my GUI don't run as root, I do rootish things in a root > console > > But the heavy lifting is done in a GUI > > i,.e. source editing - than use a terminal to run 'make' and a 'sudo > make install' to get the binaries in place. You say "po-tay-to", I say "po-tah-to". The important point is that people should have the freedom to choose whether they want to use a CLI or a GUI. And it's not a one-time choice - sometimes you might want to do the same task one way or the other. The problem comes when GUI proponents try to discourage CLIs. And a poorly-designed CLI is not an argument for GUIs (any more than a poorly-designed GUI is an argument for CLIs). -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Life is perverse. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | It can be beautiful - X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | but it won't. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lily Tomlin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-13 11:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnsov71c.4uv.sc@scarpet42p.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #33629 |
Le 12-11-2021, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> a écrit : > On 2021-11-12, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> On 12/11/2021 16:12, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: >> >>> Le 12-11-2021, 166p1 <z24ba6.net> a écrit : >>> >>>> GUI tools can accomplish in minutes what would take hours to do in >>>> tweaking dozens of config files with a text editor >>> >>> Do you have an example of task better handled by a GUI than by a text >>> editor or by the command line? >> >> Well 3D CAD is a bit hard on a command line. In fact even 2D cad is. >> Heck even code editing benefits from highlighting and section collapsing >> I use whichever works better, frankly. > > Exactly. No. It's obvious, some things are easier to do with the GUI than with the CLI. But the purpose of editing config files is not to use an application, but to configure it. It's unrelated with the claim. Of course, nobody is saying some games can be done by editing confing files instead of using their GUI. > And some tasks can be done well with either a CLI or a GUI. > Some people prefer one, some prefer the other. The claim is not about the choice. You choose what you prefer, I have nothing against it. The claim is it can be something like 60 times faster to use the GUI than to edit config files. So for this claim, I want examples. > You say "po-tay-to", I say "po-tah-to". The important point is that > people should have the freedom to choose whether they want to use a > CLI or a GUI. And it's not a one-time choice - sometimes you might > want to do the same task one way or the other. It's not the sentence to which I was responding. He wasn't speaking og choice but of huge efficiency. > The problem comes when GUI proponents try to discourage CLIs. > And a poorly-designed CLI is not an argument for GUIs (any > more than a poorly-designed GUI is an argument for CLIs). The problem mostly is that CLI need to be learned. When GUI can be discovered. So it looks easier for the beginner who is to lazy to learn. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-13 11:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <smo8va$sks$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33634 |
On 13/11/2021 11:06, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > The claim is it can be something like 60 times > faster to use the GUI than to edit config files. So for this claim, I > want examples. Well lets take a GUI desktop. Clicking and dragging an icon is a lot faster than finding the config file and editing it :-) And many well designed GUI configurators that are just click boxes are also quicker than editing the underlying text files. One that comes to mind is the disk partitioner on this Mint setup. I would always use that in preference to fdisk or whatever its called. Obviously GUI for its own sake is a travesty. A part of the 'designed to sell, but not to work' Apple and Microsoft philosophy along with the creeping featurism of 'we don't fix bugs: We add features' of today's software developers. -- Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-13 15:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnsovljh.4uv.sc@scarpet42p.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #33637 |
Le 13-11-2021, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> a écrit : > On 13/11/2021 11:06, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: >> The claim is it can be something like 60 times >> faster to use the GUI than to edit config files. So for this claim, I >> want examples. > > Well lets take a GUI desktop. OK. > Clicking and dragging an icon is a lot faster than finding the config > file and editing it :-) It depends. And it certainly doesn't takes hours. So it's not a good example whatever. On my computer I have no icon on my desktop, so finding an icon is not so fast. There are not so many config files I edit, so I have shortcuts and opening them is very fast. But even without a shortcut, I know very well how to find them. So it's not a good example of something which would takes hours. Which was the first claim for which I'm asking an example. > And many well designed GUI configurators that are just click boxes are > also quicker than editing the underlying text files. Once again, the claim was simple, I want a simple example of the claim. Or the claim was garbage. I want an example of something which would takes me hours to do in editing config files when it would takes minutes minutes on GUI. Your example doesn't takes minutes on GUI but seconds and doesn't takes hours on command lines but seconds. So it's unrelated. > One that comes to mind is the disk partitioner on this Mint setup. > > I would always use that in preference to fdisk or whatever its called. I don't care about your preferences. You do like you want. For my part, either I don't use a partitionner because my hard drive is already formated, or I use it often because I want to create Virtual machines and as fdisk and gparted can be scripted, once the script is written (which is easy), the partitioning part using the script is faster than what you can hope with a graphical partitionner. So it's not a good example of something which takes minutes on GUI and hours on command line. > Obviously GUI for its own sake is a travesty. There are a lot of reasons to use a GUI, even if you prefer a terminal, the GUI helps you manage several terminals opened at the same time. Browsing internet is nicer with a GUI than with links too. I have nothing against GUI, I'm only asking only for ONE example of a claim which looks false to me. So either he proves his claim with one example or I'll know it was false. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-14 15:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnsp2aie.bkt.whynot@orphan.zombinet> |
| In reply to | #33638 |
with <slrnsovljh.4uv.sc@scarpet42p.localdomain> Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > Le 13-11-2021, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> a écrit : >> On 13/11/2021 11:06, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: >>> The claim is it can be something like 60 times faster to use the GUI >>> than to edit config files. So for this claim, I want examples. >> Well lets take a GUI desktop. > OK. >> Clicking and dragging an icon is a lot faster than finding the config >> file and editing it :-) > It depends. And it certainly doesn't takes hours. So it's not a good > example whatever. As I understand your disagreement, you are talking about different configs. You (sc@...) are talking about configs as understood on this side of The GUI Wall -- more-or-less convoluted (sets of) text files for servers, bots, clients (placing editors in this category too) etc. Those configs are edited once (mostly, prominent exception would be killfile (whatever actual name)) and then forgotten until upstream brakes something. Such breaks are followed by run through configs, pushing the thing into working shape, and forgotten again. Cycle Of Life, if I may. You (tnp@...) are talking about what on that other side of The GUI Wall can be achieved with applying menus and dialogs (with assorted buttons, lists, and whatnot) only. Thus, incoming newsflash, nobody here applies ls(1) by editing configs. Or cat(1). Or grep(1). This list goes on and on then reaches awk, perl, and python or whatever. Some of these things don't even have config (those things keep their configurations in the environment). *CUT* -- Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-20 09:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnsphf1t.1ap.sc@scarpet42p.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #33642 |
Le 14-11-2021, Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> a écrit : > with <slrnsovljh.4uv.sc@scarpet42p.localdomain> Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: >> Le 13-11-2021, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> a écrit : >>> On 13/11/2021 11:06, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > >>>> The claim is it can be something like 60 times faster to use the GUI >>>> than to edit config files. So for this claim, I want examples. >>> Well lets take a GUI desktop. >> OK. >>> Clicking and dragging an icon is a lot faster than finding the config >>> file and editing it :-) >> It depends. And it certainly doesn't takes hours. So it's not a good >> example whatever. > > As I understand your disagreement, you are talking about different > configs. Yes, that's why I try to come back to the initial claim each time. > You (sc@...) are talking about configs as understood on this side of The > GUI Wall -- more-or-less convoluted (sets of) text files for servers, > bots, clients (placing editors in this category too) etc. Those configs > are edited once (mostly, prominent exception would be killfile (whatever > actual name)) and then forgotten until upstream brakes something. Such > breaks are followed by run through configs, pushing the thing into > working shape, and forgotten again. Cycle Of Life, if I may. Something like that, but not only to take care of issues. To improve things too. Each time I realise I write always the same thing, I script it to improve efficiency. > You (tnp@...) are talking about what on that other side of The GUI Wall > can be achieved with applying menus and dialogs (with assorted buttons, > lists, and whatnot) only. Thus, incoming newsflash, nobody here applies > ls(1) by editing configs. Or cat(1). Or grep(1). This list goes on > and on then reaches awk, perl, and python or whatever. Some of these > things don't even have config (those things keep their configurations in > the environment). Yes, and my point is not about which one must be chosen. Each one do as he wants. My point is, if something which takes minutes with a GUI would need hours to be done in CLI, I'd like to know what it is. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web