Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: botnetWorks - Call for experimental botnet beta testers

  1. #21
    Dustin Cook
    Guest

    Re: botnetWorks - Call for experimental botnet beta testers

    "Ant" <not@home.today> wrote in
    news:GqSdnXmiU5oXQQ3WnZ2dnUVZ8tudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk:

    > "gtownfunk" wrote:
    >
    >> - Written in C#

    >
    > Yuk.
    >
    >> instead of obscure scripting languages hackers might use

    >
    > Bot authors prefer ASM, C or C++.
    >
    >> - Runs on the .NET Framework you are familiar with

    >
    > Am I? I did a five day course on it once.
    > So, it won't run on a unix box.
    >
    >
    >


    It's .NET based? Well, I know of 2 computers in this house that aren't able
    to run it short of me installing the .NET support files beforehand.

    What a sorry state of affairs. Most potentially malicious code was asm, c,
    or c++, even VB at times.. but now.. .NET? I'm going to go in a corner a
    puke now.


    --
    "Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge
    this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior


  2. #22
    FromTheRafters
    Guest

    Re: botnetWorks - Call for experimental botnet beta testers

    "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns9D3933CB0D724HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.247...
    > "FromTheRafters" <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
    > news:hmsalm$gce$1
    > @news.eternal-september.org:
    >
    >> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
    >> news:hmpr0601rq6@news3.newsguy.com...
    >>
    >>> Like there is no benevolent virus, there is no benevolent botnet.

    >>
    >> This assumes that computing power is being stolen. Otherwise a botnet
    >> is
    >> just called distributed computing. A virus is always called a virus
    >> whether it steals computing power or not - it is assumed that an
    >> infecting virus will always be malicious because it is stealing power
    >> at
    >> the very least. The definition of virus has nothing to do with
    >> malware,
    >> whereas the definition of botnet seems to be "malicious distributed
    >> computing network".
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > It's not malicious for stealing cpu cycles alone. It's considered
    > malicious
    > because it makes unwanted changes to other aspects of the system,
    > sometimes
    > with dire results; and not intended by the author.


    ***
    Are you saying they (viruses) are considered malicious because they tend
    to be buggy?
    ***

    > Obviously this applies to viruses, and not this fellows botnet for
    > sale...


    ***
    I was just trying to show that the definition (Turing machine
    computational model) of "virus" is less like "malware" and more like
    "neutral" as in more like an automated copy/paste operation performed on
    itself. Sure, if a contemporary virus infects programs that the user
    doesn't want infected, it is malware (makes unwanted modifications). The
    term "virus" does not mean "malware" while the term "botnet" apparently
    does - else they would be called "distributed computing networks". So
    botnet will always have a negative connotation, by definition (just as
    Pluto will never again be a planet, by definition).
    ***



  3. #23
    Dustin Cook
    Guest

    Re: botnetWorks - Call for experimental botnet beta testers

    "FromTheRafters" <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
    news:hnegcr$7pt$1@news.eternal-september.org:

    > "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9D3933CB0D724HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.247...
    >> "FromTheRafters" <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
    >> news:hmsalm$gce$1
    >> @news.eternal-september.org:
    >>
    >>> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
    >>> news:hmpr0601rq6@news3.newsguy.com...
    >>>
    >>>> Like there is no benevolent virus, there is no benevolent botnet.
    >>>
    >>> This assumes that computing power is being stolen. Otherwise a
    >>> botnet is
    >>> just called distributed computing. A virus is always called a virus
    >>> whether it steals computing power or not - it is assumed that an
    >>> infecting virus will always be malicious because it is stealing
    >>> power at
    >>> the very least. The definition of virus has nothing to do with
    >>> malware,
    >>> whereas the definition of botnet seems to be "malicious distributed
    >>> computing network".
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> It's not malicious for stealing cpu cycles alone. It's considered
    >> malicious
    >> because it makes unwanted changes to other aspects of the system,
    >> sometimes
    >> with dire results; and not intended by the author.

    >
    > ***
    > Are you saying they (viruses) are considered malicious because they
    > tend to be buggy?
    > ***


    No. Not all viruses are really that buggy, many are, but not all. It's
    malicious because it makes unauthorized changes to a program. The
    changes while necessary for the viruses own survival can result in
    damage to the host executable or boot sector. Sometimes it's buggy code
    in the virus completely to blame for this, and other times it's just a
    bad call for the virus; it ran into an oddball executable that isn't
    cool with the necessary patching.

    A benign virus is malicious because of these unintended side effects.

    >> Obviously this applies to viruses, and not this fellows botnet for
    >> sale...

    >
    > ***
    > I was just trying to show that the definition (Turing machine
    > computational model) of "virus" is less like "malware" and more like
    > "neutral" as in more like an automated copy/paste operation performed
    > on itself. Sure, if a contemporary virus infects programs that the


    I've always thought of file infectors as modified file copying programs.
    Instead of copying source to target directly, they insert themselves in
    some form into the stream and wind up being one with the target.

    > user doesn't want infected, it is malware (makes unwanted
    > modifications). The term "virus" does not mean "malware" while the
    > term "botnet" apparently does - else they would be called "distributed
    > computing networks". So botnet will always have a negative
    > connotation, by definition (just as Pluto will never again be a
    > planet, by definition). ***


    Couldn't have said it better myself.


    --
    "Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh..
    nudge this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior


  4. #24
    FromTheRafters
    Guest

    Re: botnetWorks - Call for experimental botnet beta testers

    "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns9D39CA9711F65HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250...
    > "FromTheRafters" <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in


    >> ***
    >> Are you saying they (viruses) are considered malicious because they
    >> tend to be buggy?
    >> ***

    >
    > No. Not all viruses are really that buggy, many are, but not all. It's
    > malicious because it makes unauthorized changes to a program.


    Fred Cohen's demonstration virus always asked for permission to infect.
    So did his theoretical "compression virus". It is not out to steal
    computing power to accomplish some malicious task. It is still a virus
    (even of the type that must "infect" by definition - to exclude
    diskcopy).

    > The
    > changes while necessary for the viruses own survival can result in
    > damage to the host executable or boot sector. Sometimes it's buggy
    > code
    > in the virus completely to blame for this, and other times it's just a
    > bad call for the virus; it ran into an oddball executable that isn't
    > cool with the necessary patching.
    >
    > A benign virus is malicious because of these unintended side effects.


    Any program can be buggy, it doesn't make them malicious. Why must it be
    for viruses?
    (pity the poor, much maligned, code known as a computer virus) :o)

    [...]

    > I've always thought of file infectors as modified file copying
    > programs.
    > Instead of copying source to target directly, they insert themselves
    > in
    > some form into the stream and wind up being one with the target.


    Like "The Fly"? :o)



  5. #25
    za kAT
    Guest

    Re: botnetWorks - Call for experimental botnet beta testers

    On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:37:26 -0500, FromTheRafters wrote:

    > "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9D39CA9711F65HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250...
    >> "FromTheRafters" <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in

    >
    >>> ***
    >>> Are you saying they (viruses) are considered malicious because they
    >>> tend to be buggy?
    >>> ***

    >>
    >> No. Not all viruses are really that buggy, many are, but not all. It's
    >> malicious because it makes unauthorized changes to a program.

    >
    > Fred Cohen's demonstration virus always asked for permission to infect.
    > So did his theoretical "compression virus". It is not out to steal
    > computing power to accomplish some malicious task. It is still a virus
    > (even of the type that must "infect" by definition - to exclude
    > diskcopy).
    >
    >> The
    >> changes while necessary for the viruses own survival can result in
    >> damage to the host executable or boot sector. Sometimes it's buggy
    >> code
    >> in the virus completely to blame for this, and other times it's just a
    >> bad call for the virus; it ran into an oddball executable that isn't
    >> cool with the necessary patching.
    >>
    >> A benign virus is malicious because of these unintended side effects.

    >
    > Any program can be buggy, it doesn't make them malicious. Why must it be
    > for viruses?
    > (pity the poor, much maligned, code known as a computer virus) :o)
    >
    > [...]
    >
    >> I've always thought of file infectors as modified file copying
    >> programs.
    >> Instead of copying source to target directly, they insert themselves
    >> in
    >> some form into the stream and wind up being one with the target.

    >
    > Like "The Fly"? :o)


    OK, so I found this and this and this here:

    http://androidcommunity.com/forums/m...oms-71403.html

    and dat there:

    http://moourl.com/LotsaBearBottoms

    Sorry, I want definitive, absolute proof that the Bear Bottoms
    mentioned in all those links and lives in Southern Louisiana is the
    Bear Bottoms who posts here and lives in Southern Louisiana. Because
    they post and talk alike means nothing to me.

    There are thousands of Bear Bottoms in Southern Louisiana, Gordon. I
    bet. You do all the work, I'll stay safe, head buried into the sand.

    Otherwise, you're a liar like Ari.

    Btw, don't type too fast, things fly right by me thousands a time a
    year.

    I also invoke the Secret Squirrel for things that are far too
    sophisticated for me to imagine much less understand.
    --
    zakAT@pooh.the.cat - www.zakATsKopterChat.com

  6. #26
    za kAT
    Guest

    Re: botnetWorks - Call for experimental botnet beta testers

    On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:23:41 -0400, za fORGER wrote:

    I'm dreadfully sorry about the intrusion chaps. I asked Ari for 'proof'
    regarding a certain statement, and now he's wet himself, and having a fit.

    Ces't la vie. <shrug>

    --
    zakAT@pooh.the.cat - www.zakATsKopterChat.com

  7. #27
    Jim
    Guest

    Re: botnetWorks - Call for experimental botnet beta testers

    On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:39:21 +0000, za kAT
    <zakAT@super-secret-IPaddress.invalid> wrote:

    >On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:23:41 -0400, za fORGER wrote:
    >
    >I'm dreadfully sorry about the intrusion chaps. I asked Ari for 'proof'
    >regarding a certain statement, and now he's wet himself, and having a fit.
    >
    >Ces't la vie. <shrug>


    Your French is even worse than your English.

    --

    Jim.

    A non prophet making organisation.

  8. #28
    za kAT
    Guest

    Re: botnetWorks - Call for experimental botnet beta testers

    On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 23:36:40 +0000, Jim wrote:

    > On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:39:21 +0000, za kAT
    > <zakAT@super-secret-IPaddress.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:23:41 -0400, za fORGER wrote:
    >>
    >>I'm dreadfully sorry about the intrusion chaps. I asked Ari for 'proof'
    >>regarding a certain statement, and now he's wet himself, and having a fit.
    >>
    >>Ces't la vie. <shrug>

    >
    > Your French is even worse than your English.


    But way better than your manners.

    --
    zakAT@pooh.the.cat - www.zakATsKopterChat.com

Similar Threads

  1. Beta testers with Cisco APs wanted.
    By WiFiOwl in forum Network Security
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-12-07, 04:48 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •