(Msg. 33) Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Just 12 minutes [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: alt>comp>anti-virus (more info?)
"Ant" <not RemoveThis @home.today> wrote in message
news:57adne-LfMffpDfaRVnygwA@brightview.co.uk...
> "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
>
>> "Ant" wrote:
>>> I have since closed all ports so that even without a firewall I am no
>>> longer open to these kind of attacks.
>>
>> LOL yes as long as your are not connected to the internet which kind of
>> defeats the object.
>
> Read the original question again.
REad my posts gain.
>
>> Why not get well protected and unplug your modem etc???
>
> Read my other post in this thread.
REad my previous posts first.
>
>> You have gazillions of other software acessing the interenet when you
>> you do use the internet that can be infected.
>
> No I don't. Those that do are configured properly.
>
>> You are just bocking one hole in a culander. Rather pointless.
>
> I block other things too.
(Msg. 34) Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:51 pm
Post subject: Re: Just 12 minutes [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
Daave wrote:
> I'm sure many here are very familiar with the notion that there
> is "a 50% chance of being infected by an internet worm in just
> 12 minutes of being online using an unprotected, unpatched
> Windows PC."
You should qualify that statement.
It should read "unpatched Windows NT-based PC". As in Windows NT, 2K
or XP.
Windows 98/se, as installed using it's default installation settings,
is not (and was not) vulnerable to network-based exploits (worms
mostly) like NT, 2K and XP were, and for which the phrase "Internet
Survival Time" was coined for (google that phrase for more
background).
(Msg. 35) Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:50 pm
Post subject: Re: Just 12 minutes [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
| "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
| news:EAqqj.19434$hF2.8364@trnddc02...
>> From: "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump.RemoveThis@invalid.com>
>>
>> I stated...
>> "If you probe my IP you won't find out anything."
>>
>> You eplied...
>> "Computer off line due to a virus infection?"
>>
>> Not even close. It is because my Router is locked down, wob't respond to
>> 'pings', Telnet,
>> TFTP or other atempts at communication.
|
| How quaint, neither will mine.
| If fact you will find it hard to find a computer at my IP adress at all.
|
>> When you see the WAN address you can't see the
>> non-routable private address scheme of 192.168.x.y and the Router will NOT
>> translate that
>> WAN to LAN address from the POV of the Internet.
>>
>> Your conclusions in this thread are faulty to say the least and I am not
>> going to hash and
>> rehash answers to try to convince you otherwise.
|
| Better no do cos you will look very silly when I prove you wronog.
|
>> Please take the time to research this subject matter.
|
| An ironic statement if ever iheard one.
|
>> If you do you will learn that due to
>> simplistic FireWall constructs found in NAT Routers and specifically
>> Network address
>> Translation nodes from the POV of the Internet can not simply access nodes
>> on the LAN side.
>> Additionally you will learn the software based FireWalls are placebos when
>> compared to an PC
>> (even with open ports) that are behind a NAT Router or a Router with a
>> full FireWall
>> implementation.
|
| Largly piffle.
| Do some real resaerch instad of parroting something you found on the the net
| or repeatiing a salesmans prattle
|
(Msg. 36) Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:00 am
Post subject: Re: Just 12 minutes [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:eJrqj.109350$U12.53357@trnddc06...
> From: "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump DeleteThis @invalid.com>
>
> |
> | "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
> | news:EAqqj.19434$hF2.8364@trnddc02...
>>> From: "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump DeleteThis @invalid.com>
>>>
>>> I stated...
>>> "If you probe my IP you won't find out anything."
>>>
>>> You eplied...
>>> "Computer off line due to a virus infection?"
>>>
>>> Not even close. It is because my Router is locked down, wob't respond
>>> to
>>> 'pings', Telnet,
>>> TFTP or other atempts at communication.
> |
> | How quaint, neither will mine.
> | If fact you will find it hard to find a computer at my IP adress at all.
> |
>>> When you see the WAN address you can't see the
>>> non-routable private address scheme of 192.168.x.y and the Router will
>>> NOT
>>> translate that
>>> WAN to LAN address from the POV of the Internet.
>>>
>>> Your conclusions in this thread are faulty to say the least and I am not
>>> going to hash and
>>> rehash answers to try to convince you otherwise.
> |
> | Better no do cos you will look very silly when I prove you wronog.
> |
>>> Please take the time to research this subject matter.
> |
> | An ironic statement if ever iheard one.
> |
>>> If you do you will learn that due to
>>> simplistic FireWall constructs found in NAT Routers and specifically
>>> Network address
>>> Translation nodes from the POV of the Internet can not simply access
>>> nodes
>>> on the LAN side.
>>> Additionally you will learn the software based FireWalls are placebos
>>> when
>>> compared to an PC
>>> (even with open ports) that are behind a NAT Router or a Router with a
>>> full FireWall
>>> implementation.
> |
> | Largly piffle.
> | Do some real resaerch instad of parroting something you found on the the
> net
> | or repeatiing a salesmans prattle
> |
>
Ah running away when the going gets abit hot for you eh?
You still have no provided adaquate answers to my questions so that
is no surprise.
Were are the 48,000 virus infections I should be having, you didn't quite
manage to a address that one either, just concentrated on making
up as many acronymns as you can, oh and yes placeabos, how posh.
(Msg. 37) Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:39 am
Post subject: Re: Just 12 minutes [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
> "Ant" wrote:
>> Read the original question again.
>
> REad my posts gain.
No point. There was nothing of value there the first time. You're
obviously a newbie and a troll.
(Msg. 38) Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:33 am
Post subject: Re: Just 12 minutes [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
"Ant" <not DeleteThis @home.today> wrote in message
news:4uGdnQZFR_2k_zfanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
> "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
>
>> "Ant" wrote:
>>> Read the original question again.
>>
>> REad my posts gain.
>
> No point. There was nothing of value there the first time. You're
> obviously a newbie and a troll.
No quite the opposite, you are either an idiot or a troll, if I had
to put my money on either I think I would tend to go for the fromer
but it's obviously a tough call and chances are you are a bit of both.
>
>
(Msg. 39) Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:02 am
Post subject: Re: Just 12 minutes [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
From: "Virus Guy" <Virus.DeleteThis@Guy.com>
|
| You should qualify that statement.
|
| It should read "unpatched Windows NT-based PC". As in Windows NT, 2K
| or XP.
|
| Windows 98/se, as installed using it's default installation settings,
| is not (and was not) vulnerable to network-based exploits (worms
| mostly) like NT, 2K and XP were, and for which the phrase "Internet
| Survival Time" was coined for (google that phrase for more
| background).
Not 100% true.
For TCP ports 135 and 445 - yes.
However Win9x/ME was very vulnerable to worms using NetBIOS over IP as infection vectors.
The BugBear comes to mind as well as Baloon and Netlog worms.
(Msg. 40) Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:02 am
Post subject: Re: Just 12 minutes [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
From: "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net>
|
| Not 100% true.
|
| For TCP ports 135 and 445 - yes.
|
| However Win9x/ME was very vulnerable to worms using NetBIOS over IP as infection vectors.
|
| The BugBear comes to mind as well as Baloon and Netlog worms.
|
I believe early SDBot variants did as well. I f I remeber correctly they had a large list
of passwords they used to access NetBIOS over IP shares.
All times are: Eastern Time (US & Canada) (change) Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 5 of 6
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum