Directly running a .zip, kinda

[iago]

This is a tricky way to hide an executable file:

Was doing some testing [xfocus-AD-051115]

Ie Multiple antivirus failed to scan
malicous filename bypass vulnerability

The system is windows 2000 sp4 srp5 with
all other patches upto date.

At the command prompt cmd.exe execute
the following with the results.

I copy and paste from cmd.exe
-------------------------------------------------------------------

E:\TEMP>cd test

E:\TEMP\test>copy %windir%\system32\calc.exe
        1 file(s) copied.

E:\TEMP\test>ren calc.exe calc.exe.zip

E:\TEMP\test>dir /b
calc.exe.zip

E:\TEMP\test>calc.exe.zip

E:\TEMP\test>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This bring up the calc.exe on the screen.


_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

It actually doesn't matter what the extension is.  .exe.txt.zip.exe.pdf will still run.

[Sidoh]

Isn't this kind of like the "exploit" we found on Apache with it parsing stuff.php.rar as a PHP file?

[iago]

Yes, in the thread on full-disclosure this issue was referenced.

[Sidoh]

Yes, in the thread on full-disclosure this issue was referenced.

Hehe.

[ink]

Isn't that somewhat of a non-issue if you have settings set to show file extensions?

Another neat thing is using SFX scripting in winrar to make self-extracting archieves

[Sidoh]

Isn't that somewhat of a non-issue if you have settings set to show file extensions?

Another neat thing is using SFX scripting in winrar to make self-extracting archieves

You're good at digging up old topics!

Haha, yeah.  This doesn't really matter as you're pretty much telling Windows to execute it as an application when you type a filename in a command prompt.

[iago]

Isn't that somewhat of a non-issue if you have settings set to show file extensions?

Yes, but Windows' traditional "beauty before safety/functionality" view ensured that that's off by default.  Big mistake, in my opinion. 

[ink]

Don't worry, the Windows Vista 'revolution' will fix all that! Ahha 

Another way to trick people is using either Winzip or Winrar, you can rename a file to something like:
"MaliciousFile.doc                                                             .exe"

That way when you add it to the archieve it looks like:

MaliciousFile.doc                           ..
and using Reshack you can easily change the .exe icon to a .doc icon

[Sidoh]

Don't worry, the Windows Vista 'revolution' will fix all that! Ahha 

ROFL.

[Warrior]

Don't worry, the Windows Vista 'revolution' will fix all that! Ahha 

You're damn right, but you'd be too busy misinterpreting text to figure out how to install it
at the least.

[ink]

lol yes I'm sure installing a Windows product will be very difficult, I'm not sure if I can handle a revolutionary install wizard!

[Warrior]

You might think it's disabled by default.

[ink]

Hawhaw! If I were to base my judgement off previous Microsoft products, I'd say yes, file extentions will be disabled by default.

[Warrior]

Most likely, I turn them on personally. Mostly because to make "PHP" files I make textfiles then rename the extension. Otherwise I'd leave them off.

[ink]

I turn them on because looks can be decieving.

[Sidoh]

Most likely, I turn them on personally. Mostly because to make "PHP" files I make textfiles then rename the extension. Otherwise I'd leave them off.

If that's the only reason you enable that feature, you're obviously not considering all of the other advantages it entails.

[ink]

If that's the only reason you enable that feature, you're obviously not considering all of the other advantages it entails.

Agreed. Lets say you want to send an EXE to a friend via e-mail, but your e-mail provider doesn't allow exe's to be sent, even if archieved. In which case you could rename your exe to a jpg and send it then he could rename it to exe.

[iago]

Most likely, I turn them on personally. Mostly because to make "PHP" files I make textfiles then rename the extension. Otherwise I'd leave them off.

If that's the only reason you enable that feature, you're obviously not considering all of the other advantages it entails.

Agreed.  From a security perspective, it's one of the dumbest decisions I've seen.  And that's saying a lot.  But making sure that people have NO idea what type of file they're running can cause nothing but bad things. 

I tell my family members, "don't open anything that ends with .exe, .pif, [etc]", and my grandpa's friend even has it on a sticky note on his monitor.  But when it's sitting on his desktop, he doesn't know what type of file it is.  And he doesn't know how to find out.  So especially for people like him, having extensions disabled is asinine. 

[Warrior]

Sorry, I don't live under a rock in fear of every exploit out there. Funny how I've almost never been "exploited 0mgz". You guys have been using Linux too much, it's like vietnam vets. Jumpy as fuck.

[Sidoh]

Sorry, I don't live under a rock in fear of every exploit out there. Funny how I've almost never been "exploited 0mgz". You guys have been using Linux too much, it's like vietnam vets. Jumpy as fuck.

That's because you're computer literate; you understand that option exists and know how to change its value.  The people iago are discussing aren't computer literate; they're the masses.  This is one of the several reasons that Windows systems are so easy to infect from a global standing.  At least 60% (rough estimate) of the people who recieve a file aren't going to understand the chance that it isn't exactly what they think it is.  They open it and their system is suddenly infected.

[Warrior]

Sorry, I don't live under a rock in fear of every exploit out there. Funny how I've almost never been "exploited 0mgz". You guys have been using Linux too much, it's like vietnam vets. Jumpy as fuck.

That's because you're computer literate; you understand that option exists and know how to change its value.  The people iago are discussing aren't computer literate; they're the masses.  This is one of the several reasons that Windows systems are so easy to infect from a global standing.  At least 60% (rough estimate) of the people who recieve a file aren't going to understand the chance that it isn't exactly what they think it is.  They open it and their system is suddenly infected.

Except...windows..isn't targeted. You infect a home user you get nothing, a few pictures, some music, a program or two. Aside from that, nothing.

[Sidoh]

Except...windows..isn't targeted. You infect a home user you get nothing, a few pictures, some music, a program or two. Aside from that, nothing.

And that makes it okay for Windows to allow security flaws in their OS?

[Warrior]

How exactly is this a flaw? I'd call it a neat trick.

[Sidoh]

How exactly is this a flaw? I'd call it a neat trick.

You think this is the only security hole Microsoft has left in Windows?  Ha!

[Warrior]

I'm not talking about the rest, this is a topic on this specific one so it'd make sense that I'm talking about this one..

[Sidoh]

I'm not talking about the rest, this is a topic on this specific one so it'd make sense that I'm talking about this one..

Nice way to dodge the argument, Warrior.  Here you are saying that Windows has "revolutionary" security features, yet you fail to defend it when issues like these arrise.

I think it's a flaw because it allows people to exploit people's ignorance.  If it was disabled by default, it would be a more difficult task.

[Warrior]

I'm not talking about the rest, this is a topic on this specific one so it'd make sense that I'm talking about this one..

Nice way to dodge the argument, Warrior.  Here you are saying that Windows has "revolutionary" security features, yet you fail to defend it when issues like these arrise.

I have no idea what the hell you mean, if you want me to address the argument (As irrelevant as it is) I will. While we're at it let's talk about how MacOSX has a shiny bar since we're in the mood to discuss things offtopic!

Windows Vista has improved security, things like this wouldn't happen since now the shell features more information than before per file so simple exploits like this are irrelevant. Now others exploits most of them are either fixed each month or completely squashed with Vista's new permission system.

[Sidoh]

I have no idea what the hell you mean, if you want me to address the argument (As irrelevant as it is) I will. While we're at it let's talk about how MacOSX has a shiny bar since we're in the mood to discuss things offtopic!

Windows Vista has improved security, things like this wouldn't happen since now the shell features more information than before per file so simple exploits like this are irrelevant. Now others exploits most of them are either fixed each month or completely squashed with Vista's new permission system.

I was under the impression that Vista was still going to use NTFS?  Sorry if I'm incorrect.

Concurrently, I'd like to point out I'm talking about Windows XP, not Vista.

[ink]

Windows IS most definately the target of many hackers. to say otherwise would be rediculous

[Sidoh]

Windows IS most definately the target of many hackers. to say otherwise would be rediculous

YA RLY.

[Warrior]

I have no idea what the hell you mean, if you want me to address the argument (As irrelevant as it is) I will. While we're at it let's talk about how MacOSX has a shiny bar since we're in the mood to discuss things offtopic!

Windows Vista has improved security, things like this wouldn't happen since now the shell features more information than before per file so simple exploits like this are irrelevant. Now others exploits most of them are either fixed each month or completely squashed with Vista's new permission system.

I was under the impression that Vista was still going to use NTFS?  Sorry if I'm incorrect.

Concurrently, I'd like to point out I'm talking about Windows XP, not Vista.

NTFS has been updated if that's what you mean. NTFS has always had user permissions on files if that's what you mean as well.

Since you're talking about Windows XP and not Vista whenever I argue against Linux I'll use 0.99 instead of 2.6 to make it fair, okay?

Additionally like I've said THREE OF FOUR TIMES, Linux/Unix are the hackers main target. Who the hell wants to target a windows box? Yes let's attack home users! We may get some vacation pictures and we can post them on our hacker sites1!!!1331321312!!!!. Shutup.

[Sidoh]

NTFS has been updated if that's what you mean. NTFS has always had user permissions on files if that's what you mean as well.

I know it's always had user permissions; I help manage my school's network.  I've worked with it lots.  It's nice to know they're going to update it, though.

Since you're talking about Windows XP and not Vista whenever I argue against Linux I'll use 0.99 instead of 2.6 to make it fair, okay?

Since Windows Vista isn't publically available yet, no.  That argument would be totally irrational.

Additionally like I've said THREE OF FOUR TIMES, Linux/Unix are the hackers main target. Who the hell wants to target a windows box? Yes let's attack home users! We may get some vacation pictures and we can post them on our hacker sites1!!!1331321312!!!!. Shutup.

HAHAHAAH!!  Here, I'll quote ink:

Windows IS most definately the target of many hackers. to say otherwise would be rediculous

[ink]

That's why several european hackers have been caught with botnet's of over a million infected PC's, WINDOWS PC'S
Not every computer that uses Windows is a home computer either, if you recall when the PnP exploit came out not too long ago, CNN and New York Times both got owned because they failed to do the critical update soon enough.

[ink]

And vacation pics is hardly what they look for, but maybe you are unaware of that.
Let me enlighten you, ever heard of financial statement's, perhaps password retrievers that pickup email, ebay, and paypal passwords? Maybe JUST MAYBE they also use windows PC's to make a fortune uploading adware and spyware to their victims for companies?
Food for thought.

[Sidoh]

ink: great points.

Learn to use the edit button, though.

[ink]

Sorry, I usually do, completely forgot that I had posted right before, ah well.
If it happens again, just so you know in advance, it's not on purpose 

Actually, I think I may have meant to hit Modify but spaced out and hit reply instead then completely didn't noticed the absense of my previous post. Oh well.

[Warrior]

Since you're talking about Windows XP and not Vista whenever I argue against Linux I'll use 0.99 instead of 2.6 to make it fair, okay?

Since Windows Vista isn't publically available yet, no.  That argument would be totally irrational.

To you, no? It's availible to me and anyone else with an MSDN subscription.
Unless I'm so exclusive I forgot I'm no longer part of the public.

Additionally like I've said THREE OF FOUR TIMES, Linux/Unix are the hackers main target. Who the hell wants to target a windows box? Yes let's attack home users! We may get some vacation pictures and we can post them on our hacker sites1!!!1331321312!!!!. Shutup.

HAHAHAAH!!  Here, I'll quote ink:

Windows IS most definately the target of many hackers. to say otherwise would be rediculous

Who is he to say what? Show me some proof besides what you can type on a monitor. I can show you proof by stating which OS most servers use. You can't.

@ink: The home user isn't going to have that much on his PC, enough to make the hacker go out of his way to exploit his machine, and risk his freedom? I don't think so.

Now as for the bottleneck crap: You're again, blaming the ignorance of users on the OS. What I'd like to know is more details about this and I think the reason those big companies came down is obvious and you stated it yourself...they didn't patch. No fucking shit, a linux box'd go down too if I had an exploit and it was unpatched. See, thats the feeling of invulnerability I talk about.

[ink]

rofl stop acting like a newb man, havnt you ever heard of bots? whenever a new exploit comes out its added to the bots, and the bots scan their own ranges for vulnerable computers and do the exploiting themselves.

i'd say most servers use fendora personally. maybe freebsd

Also I find it cute when you make up your own statistics to prove a point:

Additionally like I've said THREE OF FOUR TIMES, Linux/Unix are the hackers main target.

and actually have the nerve to then say:

Who is he to say what? Show me some proof besides what you can type on a monitor. I can show you proof by stating which OS most servers use. You can't.

rofl...seriously...


And just for the heck of it, here's some of that proof you was looking for:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/01/23/hacker.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/01/31/furst/index.html
http://www.addict3d.org/index.php?page=viewarticle&type=news&ID=3031
http://www.addict3d.org/index.php?page=viewarticle&type=news&ID=11287

[Sidoh]

To you, no? It's availible to me and anyone else with an MSDN subscription.
Unless I'm so exclusive I forgot I'm no longer part of the public.

Publically available means you can download or buy the product by itself.  Vista is not publically available.

Who is he to say what? Show me some proof besides what you can type on a monitor. I can show you proof by stating which OS most servers use. You can't.

He's an informed person.  Go find virus reports on Norton or something to that affect.  I'm sure you'll find the data you're looking for.  It's not really my fault that you're stupid enough to believe that Linux is more commonly attacked than Windows.  Even if the same proportion of them were attacked, Windows would still have a significant factor more.

Once again: you're under the impression that the only targets for hackers are servers.  Wrong.

@ink: The home user isn't going to have that much on his PC, enough to make the hacker go out of his way to exploit his machine, and risk his freedom? I don't think so.

Hackers are stupid.  You'd be surprised.

Now as for the bottleneck crap: You're again, blaming the ignorance of users on the OS. What I'd like to know is more details about this and I think the reason those big companies came down is obvious and you stated it yourself...they didn't patch. No fucking shit, a linux box'd go down too if I had an exploit and it was unpatched. See, thats the feeling of invulnerability I talk about.

No, I'm blaming what the OS does when they know most of their users are ignorant.

The difference between unpached Linux boxes and unpached Windows boxes is this: there's almost always a patch for a given exploit on a Linux box.  This is not true on a Windows server or computer.  Sometimes it takes weeks for them to release a patch.  Other times Microsoft completly disregards the issue.

[ink]

I'd have to say the average intelligence of a Linux user is greater than the average intelligence of a Windows user. Thats just my opinion though, not an actual fact.

[Sidoh]

I'd have to say the average intelligence of a Linux user is greater than the average intelligence of a Windows user. Thats just my opinion though, not an actual fact.

Wrong word.  Intelligence is defined as a person's ability to retain and understand knowledge.  I would say that a Linux user's knowledge on the subject of technology is much greater than the average Windows user for sure, though.

[ink]

I stand by the word intelligence, which I feel still applies.

SEE: Definition of average.

[Warrior]

rofl stop acting like a newb man, havnt you ever heard of bots? whenever a new exploit comes out its added to the bots, and the bots scan their own ranges for vulnerable computers and do the exploiting themselves.

i'd say most servers use fendora personally. maybe freebsd

Also I find it cute when you make up your own statistics to prove a point:

Additionally like I've said THREE OF FOUR TIMES, Linux/Unix are the hackers main target.

and actually have the nerve to then say:

Who is he to say what? Show me some proof besides what you can type on a monitor. I can show you proof by stating which OS most servers use. You can't.

rofl...seriously...

Cute, however common typo. That was meant to say "THREE OR FOUR TIMES", else that would have been a pretty nice argument there.

And just for the heck of it, here's some of that proof you was looking for:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/01/23/hacker.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/01/31/furst/index.html
http://www.addict3d.org/index.php?page=viewarticle&type=news&ID=3031
http://www.addict3d.org/index.php?page=viewarticle&type=news&ID=11287

Hm, the first two are of the same guy the second last has no useful information and the last is of another group of people.
Hmm two people really make us a target. Holy fuck someone fetch Norton and ZoneAlarm we're under motherfucking attack!!!!!@!!111111

@Sidoh:

You pay for MSDN subscription then you have access to Vista, what are you getting at?

Also, I'm not going to take him "being an informed person" from you unless I see some degrees in the feilds of security coming out because anything else is just another user stating something withought information to back it up. It isn't my fault you can't backup your claims so you both resort to personal attacks to feel like you're worth something

I could easily call you both fucking retards for even touching Linux.

[ink]

rofl. I was pasting a few links as documentation to the fact that Windows machines ARE targeted.
And enough of your sarcastic OMG RUN FOR COVER remarks, unless your just saying that shit because you can't provide a SINGLE source supporting your arguement.
I'll be willing to bet those hundreds of thousands of computers were running the one, the only, Windows!

Plus those are only two people who have been caught, I can assure you there are many more out there.

[mc0]

Linux boxes aren't the main target for quite a few reasons.

1. Persons running *nix usually have much more experience than your average windows user.  This in turn means that they usually have more experience implementing better security than your average windows user. 

2. Most major exploits for *nix are local, this means that you must already have some kind of access to a command line on the box to even try to execute the vulnerability. Sure more and more rce (remote code execution) exploits appear everyday, but this only gives the hacker access to a make-shift shell, and as I stated in point one, the average *nix administrator has more experience w/security, meaning most *nix boxes today have hardening patches installed (these tend to keep hackers out).

3. It is much harder to hide things on a *nix system.  If you haven't noticed, there are many different flavors of *nix.  This being true, it is much harder to develop a standard rootkit.  Sure shv5 works on a portion, but there are hardly any for freebsd.  In retrospect, if you look at windows there are numerous rootkits, backdoors, and ways to hide things away from the administrator.  Ever hear of ntfs streams?  So simple yet almost completey undetectable to the average user.

Also, if most 'hackers' targeted *nix so much it would get much more attention from the government.  I guess you've never seen what 17 kaitens can do compared to a couple thousand bots.  There are so many more reasons why *nix is a lesser target than windows to hackers, including one huge one that I didn't bother to mention.

EDIT:

To show how ridiculously insecure windows really is, here are a few public exploits:

http://milw0rm.com/id.php?id=1505
http://milw0rm.com/id.php?id=1504
http://milw0rm.com/id.php?id=1506
http://milw0rm.com/id.php?id=1502
http://milw0rm.com/id.php?id=1466
http://milw0rm.com/id.php?id=1420
http://milw0rm.com/id.php?id=1391
http://milw0rm.com/id.php?id=1352
http://milw0rm.com/id.php?id=1260

aww hell, there's too many to list so I'll just link the whole thing. http://milw0rm.com/parse.php?platform=windows

[Sidoh]

@Sidoh:

You pay for MSDN subscription then you have access to Vista, what are you getting at?

Are you implying that an average member of society is going to fork over $2,400 (or something along those lines) for a copy of an OS they can probably buy for $600 or less in a few months?  Hahahaha.

Again: publically available means it's available to the public, not indirectly available to the public through means of subscription to an extremely expensive technical organization.

Also, I'm not going to take him "being an informed person" from you unless I see some degrees in the feilds of security coming out because anything else is just another user stating something withought information to back it up. It isn't my fault you can't backup your claims so you both resort to personal attacks to feel like you're worth something

I could easily call you both fucking retards for even touching Linux.

Okay, fine.  I'll do some Google searches for you.  Be aware: I'm not going to review the articles I assume are relevant.  I'm not going to waste my time teaching you something that your damned intuition should tell you is true:

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3513_7-6436607-1.html
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=10606
http://www.cnet.com/4520-10192_1-6378864-1.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/#cert
http://www.michaelhorowitz.com/Linux.vs.Windows.html

[Warrior]

Linux boxes aren't the main target for quite a few reasons.

1. Persons running *nix usually have much more experience than your average windows user.  This in turn means that they usually have more experience implementing better security than your average windows user. 

Oh yes, an experienced sysadmin will stop a hacker with an exploit? Especially ones that allow a hacker to obtain control remotely.

2. Most major exploits for *nix are local, this means that you must already have some kind of access to a command line on the box to even try to execute the vulnerability. Sure more and more rce (remote code execution) exploits appear everyday, but this only gives the hacker access to a make-shift shell, and as I stated in point one, the average *nix administrator has more experience w/security, meaning most *nix boxes today have hardening patches installed (these tend to keep hackers out).

So you presented an argument then took it down yourself then attempted to defend it again? Okay. Once they have access to the "make shift shell" it is more probable that there is already nothing that can be done right? Also not all hacks are found and documented right away because not all hackers help the security sites.

3. It is much harder to hide things on a *nix system.  If you haven't noticed, there are many different flavors of *nix.  This being true, it is much harder to develop a standard rootkit.  Sure shv5 works on a portion, but there are hardly any for freebsd.  In retrospect, if you look at windows there are numerous rootkits, backdoors, and ways to hide things away from the administrator.  Ever hear of ntfs streams?  So simple yet almost completey undetectable to the average user.

Also, if most 'hackers' targeted *nix so much it would get much more attention from the government.  I guess you've never seen what 17 kaitens can do compared to a couple thousand bots.  There are so many more reasons why *nix is a lesser target than windows to hackers, including one huge one that I didn't bother to mention.

State the last one because other from this one I see no others in your post helping you at all.

[Warrior]

@Sidoh:

You pay for MSDN subscription then you have access to Vista, what are you getting at?

Are you implying that an average member of society is going to fork over $2,400 (or something along those lines) for a copy of an OS they can probably buy for $600 or less in a few months?  Hahahaha.

I'm the public and it's availible to me "Publicly availible", it's good enough to be used in an argument then it seems.
Can't fight fire with fire on Vista so you're trying to make me fall back to XP? Cmonnnn

Also, I'm not going to take him "being an informed person" from you unless I see some degrees in the feilds of security coming out because anything else is just another user stating something withought information to back it up. It isn't my fault you can't backup your claims so you both resort to personal attacks to feel like you're worth something

I could easily call you both fucking retards for even touching Linux.

Okay, fine.  I'll do some Google searches for you.  Be aware: I'm not going to review the articles I assume are relevant.  I'm not going to waste my time teaching you something that your damned intuition should tell you is true:

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3513_7-6436607-1.html
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=10606
http://www.cnet.com/4520-10192_1-6378864-1.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/#cert
http://www.michaelhorowitz.com/Linux.vs.Windows.html

Hmm maybe I should google random sites with the keyword "Linux sucks" and not review them, when you decide to review them (Seeing the first one hardly even spoke of Windows other than safe IE browsing habbits) then I'll takethe time to review the rest. Until then you still stand withought proof.

[ink]

You really need to stop with the sarcasm, doesn't prove a thing but your immaturity and your incompitence to defend your own arguement.

[Warrior]

I see you've probably lost the ability to argue any further, therefore after your friend and Sidoh give up then I win. I am now going to start ignoring your posts as they are insignificant.

[mc0]

Oh yes, an experienced sysadmin will stop a hacker with an exploit? Especially ones that allow a hacker to obtain control remotely.

Obviously experienced sysadmins do stop hackers with exploits.  Thus the intarweb exists today! HARR

So you presented an argument then took it down yourself then attempted to defend it again? Okay. Once they have access to the "make shift shell" it is more probable that there is already nothing that can be done right? Also not all hacks are found and documented right away because not all hackers help the security sites.

There's much that can be done. Remove the offending software, make sure that certain users&groups are given a null shell, update software, the list goes on. You are correct that not all vulnerabilities are published right away.  This is where those magical little things I mentioned called hardening patches come in.  Even w/out a hardening patch, disable wget/fetch/curl/gcc/etc for your user accounts that don't need them.  There are not many remote root vulnerabilites for *nix.

State the last one because other from this one I see no others in your post helping you at all.

Do I really have to? Ever notice how many people complain about spyware/adware? Why do you think all that keeps getting installed? It must serve a purpose somewhere .. oh yeah, that's right .. someone gets PAID to install that stuff. Who woulda thunk?

Also, see my edit.

[ink]

I see you've probably lost the ability to argue any further, therefore after your friend and Sidoh give up then I win. I am now going to start ignoring your posts as they are insignificant.

ROFL HAHA. wow. really man. thats good stuff. Considering you don't address half the thing's we do mention, and half the ones you do address are just retarded sarcastic remarks.

[Sidoh]

Oh yes, an experienced sysadmin will stop a hacker with an exploit? Especially ones that allow a hacker to obtain control remotely.

No, but they stand much more of a chance than a script kiddie vs. an average Windows user.

State the last one because other from this one I see no others in your post helping you at all.

I thought all of his points were completely rational and defensive points.  Just because you accuse them of not being good points doesn't mean they aren't.

I'm the public and it's availible to me "Publicly availible", it's good enough to be used in an argument then it seems.
Can't fight fire with fire on Vista so you're trying to make me fall back to XP? Cmonnnn

Vista isn't publicly available.  That's pretty obvious, I think.  It hasn't been released; it isn't available to the public.  That's obvious.

No, this topic is talking about Windows, thus that's what I'm discussing.  You drug Vista into it.

Hmm maybe I should google random sites with the keyword "Linux sucks" and not review them, when you decide to review them (Seeing the first one hardly even spoke of Windows other than safe IE browsing habbits) then I'll takethe time to review the rest. Until then you still stand withought proof.

From the brief glancings I did of the articles, they looked like definitive proof.  Why don't you check them out?

I see you've probably lost the ability to argue any further, therefore after your friend and Sidoh give up then I win. I am now going to start ignoring your posts as they are insignificant.

Haha, you think I'm going to give up?  I think that my previous debating encounters with you would tell you otherwise.  Personally, I think you're making yourself look like a fool.  I'm probably doing the same by arguing with you, but that's okay.  I'm stubborn.

Concurrently, I'd like to state that I agree with ink.  Your scarcasm does nothing for your argument.  It's nothing but an annoyance.

[ink]

Warrior, I've noticed this whole time you've been on the defensive, always responding to what we have to say.
Why not support your side of the arguement instead of just trying to cut ours down?

[Warrior]

Oh yes, an experienced sysadmin will stop a hacker with an exploit? Especially ones that allow a hacker to obtain control remotely.

Obviously experienced sysadmins do stop hackers with exploits.  Thus the intarweb exists today! HARR

Not before much damage is done, unless he is vigilant 24/7 eventually he'll be caught with his pants down and all he'll be able to do is recover. I don't doubt that if they notice something happening it can't be stopped, of course it can.

So you presented an argument then took it down yourself then attempted to defend it again? Okay. Once they have access to the "make shift shell" it is more probable that there is already nothing that can be done right? Also not all hacks are found and documented right away because not all hackers help the security sites.

There's much that can be done. Remove the offending software, make sure that certain users&groups are given a null shell, update software, the list goes on. You are correct that not all vulnerabilities are published right away.  This is where those magical little things I mentioned called hardening patches come in.  Even w/out a hardening patch, disable wget/fetch/curl/gcc/etc for your user accounts that don't need them.  There are not many remote root vulnerabilites for *nix.

What is a "hardening patch"? You do however make some good points I'll admit, but I'll mention like above that caught off guard, it really depends when you notice it happening. I doubt you'd want to cripple your system like said above withought a good reason right? So am I correct that disabling all that stuff is usually not done off the bat?

State the last one because other from this one I see no others in your post helping you at all.

Do I really have to? Ever notice how many people complain about spyware/adware? Why do you think all that keeps getting installed? It must serve a purpose somewhere .. oh yeah, that's right .. someone gets PAID to install that stuff. Who woulda thunk?

Well yes, companies advertise their product..just via shady ways..I don't know what you're suggesting here however.

About that milw0rm thing I'd point out the Linux page: http://milw0rm.com/parse.php?platform=linux
But yes, no one is hiding the fact that Windows has exploits. Are these unpatched or what? I saw the first few regarding media players 9 and 10 but there have been a few patches for them. So I don't know.

[Warrior]

Oh yes, an experienced sysadmin will stop a hacker with an exploit? Especially ones that allow a hacker to obtain control remotely.

No, but they stand much more of a chance than a script kiddie vs. an average Windows user.

Agreed, sorta sad they get them in the first place.

State the last one because other from this one I see no others in your post helping you at all.

I thought all of his points were completely rational and defensive points.  Just because you accuse them of not being good points doesn't mean they aren't.

Well when I argue them, I'll assume that they've been effectively countered. Of course he proved me wrong so it was again open for discussion.

I'm the public and it's availible to me "Publicly availible", it's good enough to be used in an argument then it seems.
Can't fight fire with fire on Vista so you're trying to make me fall back to XP? Cmonnnn

Vista isn't publicly available.  That's pretty obvious, I think.  It hasn't been released; it isn't available to the public.  That's obvious.

No, this topic is talking about Windows, thus that's what I'm discussing.  You drug Vista into it.

Last I checked Vista is Windows.

Hmm maybe I should google random sites with the keyword "Linux sucks" and not review them, when you decide to review them (Seeing the first one hardly even spoke of Windows other than safe IE browsing habbits) then I'll takethe time to review the rest. Until then you still stand withought proof.

From the brief glancings I did of the articles, they looked like definitive proof.  Why don't you check them out?

The first few I discussed IE security and such but had no real proof showing why Windows is a valid target for hackers. I still don't believe so.

I see you've probably lost the ability to argue any further, therefore after your friend and Sidoh give up then I win. I am now going to start ignoring your posts as they are insignificant.

Haha, you think I'm going to give up?  I think that my previous debating encounters with you would tell you otherwise.  Personally, I think you're making yourself look like a fool.  I'm probably doing the same by arguing with you, but that's okay.  I'm stubborn.

How am I making myself look like a fool exactly? As of yet there still isn't an argument I havn't countered and the only one even giving substatial argument is mc0.

Concurrently, I'd like to state that I agree with ink.  Your scarcasm does nothing for your argument.  It's nothing but an annoyance.

It shows how stupid your point was, else you wouldn't get it unless I laugh at it.

[ink]

As of yet there still isn't an argument I havn't countered

As of yet, you havn't given us an argument to counter.

[Warrior]

As of yet there still isn't an argument I havn't countered

As of yet, you havn't given us an argument to counter.

Maybe if you read and didn't dodge what I said. You primarily, you stopped being important a while ago.

[ink]

Riiight

[iago]

Ok, I just have to say one thing.  This is the STUPIDEST argument I've EVER heard.  Warrior, you're a total idiot with no facts.  You don't listen to other people's arguments, and you ignore the obvious.  I'm not even going to bother carrying this on because it's so bloody ludicrous. 

Windows is attacked MUCH more frequently by viruses and worms.  And that's what we're discussing here!  The fact that they have filename extensions off by default makes these attacks easier.  I don't think anybody could deny it.  That's it!  The argument here is over.  Ok?

This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Linux or any other OS.  Stop making everything into an OS flame war!  This has only to do with a stupid decision made by Windows.  THAT'S IT! 

So please, cut it out with this stupid, stupid argument. 

[Newby]

Except...windows..isn't targeted. You infect a home user you get nothing, a few pictures, some music, a program or two. Aside from that, nothing.

ROFL!

You also get a connection to add to your botnet mass. Oh my GOD, I can't believe you missed that. Look at bsd with his "million bot" botnet. Yeah, Windows isn't targeted my fucking ass. Have you seen the list of infected .edu/.gov drones he has?

[Sidoh]

Agreed, sorta sad they get them in the first place.

Yeah, but it happens.  Deal with it.

Well when I argue them, I'll assume that they've been effectively countered. Of course he proved me wrong so it was again open for discussion.

Well then I'll be the first to tell you: telling someone they're an idiot for saying something doesn't make a valid argument.

Last I checked Vista is Windows.

I meant to say Windows XP, sorry.

The first few I discussed IE security and such but had no real proof showing why Windows is a valid target for hackers. I still don't believe so.

You discussed the articles?  Nice. ^_~

Read the rest of them.

How am I making myself look like a fool exactly? As of yet there still isn't an argument I havn't countered and the only one even giving substatial argument is mc0.

Again: you're making invalid claims, thus making yourself look like a fool.

It shows how stupid your point was, else you wouldn't get it unless I laugh at it.

... You really make yourself look stupid, Warrior.  Sorry.

[ink]

BSD buy's his source's and bots 
But yeah, just proves the point more, there is an actual market for such a thing...

[Warrior]

Agreed, sorta sad they get them in the first place.

Yeah, but it happens.  Deal with it.

Well duh.

Well when I argue them, I'll assume that they've been effectively countered. Of course he proved me wrong so it was again open for discussion.

Well then I'll be the first to tell you: telling someone they're an idiot for saying something doesn't make a valid argument.

What? Seems to be what you've been doing in this argument and plenty of others, don't be a hypocrite.
You have made more personal attacks in your short time back from AFK than all of the clan members combined.

The first few I discussed IE security and such but had no real proof showing why Windows is a valid target for hackers. I still don't believe so.

You discussed the articles?  Nice. ^_~

Read the rest of them.

If you can't take the time to read them why should I? I can just as well drag random articles into a thread to make it look like I'm countering something good. Unlike you I actually read the sources I cite.

How am I making myself look like a fool exactly? As of yet there still isn't an argument I havn't countered and the only one even giving substatial argument is mc0.

Again: you're making invalid claims, thus making yourself look like a fool.

Which claims are invalid? All you seem to be doing is calling people names.
Is that really your biggest strength argument wise?

It shows how stupid your point was, else you wouldn't get it unless I laugh at it.

... You really make yourself look stupid, Warrior.  Sorry.

And again.

[deadly7]

Wow, I'd agree with iago 100% here.  It is a fucking retarded decision to have File extensions off.  Back about 6 years ago when I knew naught about computers compared to what I know now, I downloaded something from an e-mail or off of P2P or something.  It appeared to be a text file with bands, the name was "BANDS" and it had a notepad icon.  Now, since file extensions were turned off by Windows, I assumed it was a simple .txt file.  However, I double-click and "BAM" I'm fucked over and have to reformat.  Also, War, get over it: Windows is targetted more by hackers and virus writers because it's what the public uses and the public is stupid enough to click anything that someone sends them.

[Sidoh]

What? Seems to be what you've been doing in this argument and plenty of others, don't be a hypocrite.
You have made more personal attacks in your short time back from AFK than all of the clan members combined.

Every single argument you make consists of personal attacks.  Very few of the arguments I make have personal attacks.  The only time I intended to personally attack you is when you said you didn't think Windows was the main target of hackers.  That was to emphasize how irrational and uninformed your oppinion was.  Sorry if you were offended.

If you can't take the time to read them why should I? I can just as well drag random articles into a thread to make it look like I'm countering something good. Unlike you I actually read the sources I cite.

They're random relevant articles.  You asked for them, I didn't want to find them.  I found ones that seemed to be releveant to my points.  I blatantly pointed out that I did not read the articles.  I'm not claiming that they're infinitely valid sources.  I said they look like they relate to my points and that you should check them out.  Personally, I don't care if you don't read them.  If you don't want to, fine with me.  I'm not going to try to force you to read them if you don't want to.  I've already reiterated several times; I think they'll help prove my point if you read them.

Which claims are invalid? All you seem to be doing is calling people names.
Is that really your biggest strength argument wise?

The ones that imply Windows is not the main target for hackers.  The ones claiming that Microsoft documents most of their procedures.  Several things like that I believe to be invalid.  If they're not, prove it.

Warrior, every argument I've ever had with you consits of you making sarcastic and vindictive statements retorting mine.  My arguments (as you've probably learned) are generally based on logical analogies and similar situations.  If you'll re-read my argument, you'll probably notice this.

And again.

Read what I quoted.  You'll see the context you used is rather similar to mine.  Ironic?  I think so.

[Warrior]

I think MSDN is the best possible proof of how much Microsoft documents.

Examples:
FAT32
PnP COM
PnP ISA
PnP for Firmware
PE and COFF format
The close to 8,000 API calls in the Windows OS
How most if not all of the windows internals work
All of their monad articles including scripting tutorials for monad.
DirectX
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwxp/html/rtc_enhancerichclient-real-timecomm.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwxp/html/rtc_enhancerichclient-real-timecomm.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwxp/html/rtc_enhancerichclient-real-timecomm.asp

These are just some I've read in the past few days, if you want more I can supply more.

Just like you call names to "emphasize how irrational and uninformed your opinion was" I'll do the same in a less harsh method of sarcasm. I personally think mc0 has brought all the good discussions to the table because he seems to be an avid Linux user.

[Newby]

Just like you call names to "emphasize how irrational and uninformed your opinion was" I'll do the same in a less harsh method of sarcasm. I personally think mc0 has brought all the good discussions to the table because he seems to be an avid Linux user.

Nice to see you calming down and not jumping the gun at every user that flames Windows.

mc0 is awesome. Speaking of which, mc0, I haven't seen you in #beta in a while. What's up?

[Warrior]

XChat expired, I really should download HydraIRC or something.

[Sidoh]

I think MSDN is the best possible proof of how much Microsoft documents.

Examples:
FAT32
PnP COM
PnP ISA
PnP for Firmware
PE and COFF format
The close to 8,000 API calls in the Windows OS
How most if not all of the windows internals work
All of their monad articles including scripting tutorials for monad.
DirectX
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwxp/html/rtc_enhancerichclient-real-timecomm.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwxp/html/rtc_enhancerichclient-real-timecomm.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwxp/html/rtc_enhancerichclient-real-timecomm.asp

These are just some I've read in the past few days, if you want more I can supply more.

Just like you call names to "emphasize how irrational and uninformed your opinion was" I'll do the same in a less harsh method of sarcasm. I personally think mc0 has brought all the good discussions to the table because he seems to be an avid Linux user.

By document, I mean give the guts of the subsystem.  Do they actually describe how they implement DirectX and PnP, or do they just describe how to interface it?  API calls have to be documented in some sense if they want their OS to be versatile in any sense.

[Newby]

XChat expired, I really should download HydraIRC or something.

I meant mc0, but you should get on more often too!

[Warrior]

I think MSDN is the best possible proof of how much Microsoft documents.

Examples:
FAT32
PnP COM
PnP ISA
PnP for Firmware
PE and COFF format
The close to 8,000 API calls in the Windows OS
How most if not all of the windows internals work
All of their monad articles including scripting tutorials for monad.
DirectX
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwxp/html/rtc_enhancerichclient-real-timecomm.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwxp/html/rtc_enhancerichclient-real-timecomm.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwxp/html/rtc_enhancerichclient-real-timecomm.asp

These are just some I've read in the past few days, if you want more I can supply more.

Just like you call names to "emphasize how irrational and uninformed your opinion was" I'll do the same in a less harsh method of sarcasm. I personally think mc0 has brought all the good discussions to the table because he seems to be an avid Linux user.

By document, I mean give the guts of the subsystem.  Do they actually describe how they implement DirectX and PnP, or do they just describe how to interface it?  API calls have to be documented in some sense if they want their OS to be versatile in any sense.

Well on DirectX I don't know since it's pretty sticky information a lot dangerous because of their trade secrets with companies like ATi and nVidia.

I remember seeing articles on the implementation of things in Windows (A LOT of memory management and some pitfalls they encounter), I saw some on dangers of 32bit code in a 64 bit enviroment, things like task starvation in windows 3.11 etc..

[Sidoh]

Well on DirectX I don't know since it's pretty sticky information a lot dangerous because of their trade secrets with companies like ATi and nVidia.

I remember seeing articles on the implementation of things in Windows (A LOT of memory management and some pitfalls they encounter), I saw some on dangers of 32bit code in a 64 bit enviroment, things like task starvation in windows 3.11 etc..

It's good that they at least document some of their findings.

It kind of reminds me of the military.  Did you know it's illegal to release encryption algorithms in the US (or at least it used to be -- I don't think it's much of a problem now that quantum computers are a reality) that take government supercomputers more than an hour to crack?  Once they're done with its use, they release it to the public.

[Warrior]

This is why there was such a big issue when Windows 2000 source was leaked, a lot of secrets in there. Same thing with ReactOS and how they reversed some Windows code. Forced them to do a full code audit.