What the hell is going on with all this "Microshit" spam and bullshit attachments
and why the hell isn't Microsoft doing something about it.
I have to get myself a new email address every few weeks because my mailboxes
are overflowing with Micros**t spam and attachments.
Microsoft won't have a single customer left if they don't act soon.
uuuuuummmmmm......close the massive, gaping holes in their software that
make this kind of stuff so easy to do? Don't turn on by default those
holes that must be left? Put some actual engineering effort (as opposed
to their current emphasis on marketing effort) into providing a safe,
secure product?
CW wrote:
> It has nothing to do with them. What do you expect them to do?
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>What the hell is going on with all this "Microshit" spam and bullshit
>
> attachments
>
>>and why the hell isn't Microsoft doing something about it.
>>
>>I have to get myself a new email address every few weeks because my
>
> mailboxes
>
>>are overflowing with Micros**t spam and attachments.
>>
>>Microsoft won't have a single customer left if they don't act soon.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>We may safely assume you do not hold their stock.
>>
>
>>From someone formerly involved in the business, there is _NO_ code which
>
>>cannot be broken, and if you want to make mischief, you'll want to do it on
>>the broadest scale possible.
>>
>
> True, but some things are more easily broken than others -- Mickeysoft more
> easily than most, largely because of their long-standing inattention to
> security issues. Case in point: buffer-overflow exploits are easily prevented
> by use of proper programming techniques, yet Mickeysoft continues to
> distribute software with this vulnerability.
>
> The broad scale on which Mickeysoft operating systems are attacked is due both
> to their broad distribution *and* to their well-known vulnerability to attack,
> IMO in approximately equal measure.
Well said, and thank you. The fact is that Micro$oft has made it so
easy to create worms that no actual programming is required. It can be
accomplished with simple scripts attached to e-mails that are activated
when users preview the message in Outhouse. Of course, if someone does
know how to code, it's even easier.
By the way, I'm not *formerly* involved in the business, I am
*currently* involved. I am an operating system level programmer
(commonly knows as a kernel developer) who has worked inside the Linux
and Solaris kernels, and at the device driver level for Windoze. I have
some small clue about system vulnerabilities and exploits.
>
>
>>Anything which attempts to deny these realities is childish whining.
>
>
> No, it's constructive criticism. Mickeysoft *does* have "massive, gaping holes
> in their software". And they *do* enable by default many things that should be
> disabled. Steve Gibson has a good discussion of this at www.grc.com .
Also check out a site called securityfocus.com. They have extensive
information about viruses, worms, firewalls, and just about any other
security issue you can think of. They cover not only Windoze, but all
flavors of UNIX and the Internet.
NoJointerHere wrote:
> "John W. Fawcett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1067347962.418914@yasure...
>
>>uuuuuummmmmm......close the massive, gaping holes in their software that
>>make this kind of stuff so easy to do? Don't turn on by default those
>>holes that must be left? Put some actual engineering effort (as opposed
>>to their current emphasis on marketing effort) into providing a safe,
>>secure product?
>>
>
>
> Mail generally travels the world on SMTP protocols, which has its roots in
> Unix and is very extremely easy to 'trick' into sending mail on anyone's
> behalf. If you are upset about the amount of spam in this world, then you
> need only dig back to 1982's RFC821 (SMTP) to aim the blame. Then, temper
> that understanding with the understanding that the internet (TCP and IP) was
> designed only to route around accidental blockages, and was never designed
> to block malicious attacks on a host or client device.
>
> Combine both of those facts together, and it's easy for anyone to cause
> another person considerable aggravation on the internet regardless of the OS
> they are running. Remember the first internet worm was released in 1988 and
> tore its way through Unix systems wreaking considerable havoc in about 6
> hours. The worm took advantage of many holes in in the sendmail SMTP progam.
> Sendmail's latest buffer overflow vulnerability was reported Sept 26, 2003
> on IBM's AIX platform. There have been hundreds of sendmail vulnerabilities
> and patches over the years.
>
>
All absolutely correct and undisputed. The gaping holes I refer to are
the ones that allow non-programmer script kiddies to create malicious
messages that trash machines just because someone opened a message.
That aside, the fact that there are hundreds of vulnerabilities in
protocol implementations of SMTP (and other protocols) is countered by
the fact that the open source communities work quickly to plug these
holes. Yes, vendors have to fix their own implementations of the
protocols, but, under UNIX, you are not required to use the vendor
implementation. I have built and administered open source SMTP, NNTP,
and HTTP (and other protocol) implementations leaving the vendor
software far behind. Problems reported against Windows software are
often not fixed until they become very public (see the Security Focus
archives).
It's been fun, folks, but I've gotten kind of tired of trying to open
closed minds. I've got work to do and things to build in the shop.
Have fun with your pop-ups, worms, viruses, and everything else.
Remember that there's nothing better than preventing the problems before
they arise. Use firewalls (both hardware and software -- Tiny Personal
Firewall is very good and reasonably priced see
http://www.tinysoftware.com), antivirus software (a good free one is at
http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_dwnl7.php), anti-spyware software (see
http://www.lavasoftusa.com/software/adaware/ -- basic version is free),
and, no matter what else you do, TURN OFF preview in Outlook.
It's a self-propigating virus that fakes email addresses. No relation to
Microsoft, and nothing they can do about it.
GTO(John)
>What the hell is going on with all this "Microshit" spam and bullshit
>attachments
>and why the hell isn't Microsoft doing something about it.
>
>I have to get myself a new email address every few weeks because my mailboxes
>are overflowing with Micros**t spam and attachments.
>
>Microsoft won't have a single customer left if they don't act soon.
Leon wrote:
> I read an article about Microsoft security issues and it brought up a
> point that sorta gave another slant on the subject. Seems as though
> if Microsoft would put a decent firewall, spam blocker, pop up
> blocker, etc in to begin with many of the security problems could be
> solved. Trouble is however,Third party software venders would start
> crying about how Microsoft is cornering the market again by including
> free programs similar to the Internet Explorer program fiasco.
ACK.
But they're doing it anyway.
It's probably a good thing in the long run. Anybody besides me recall the
nightmare of networking in DOS & Win 3.x, when networking wasn't built into
the OS? IIRC I had one computer on my desk with 6 or 8 sets of CONFIG.SYS /
AUTOEXEC.BAT.
Utility makers have to keep finding new things Windows doesn't do well &
make them, knowing that in a release or two there won't be any market.
-- Mark
The same old weak crying. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa,
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
"John W. Fawcett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OK, I was going to keep quiet on this, but...
>
> It's all about STANDARDS, folks. There are groups out there developing
> standards for everything. ANSI, the American National Standards
> Institute, comes up with standards for everything from weights and
> measures to high tech. The purpose of these standards is to insure that
> everyone working within a discipline has a common set of references and
> specifications from which to work.
>
> Micro$oft doesn't give a *hit about standards, until they're forced to.
> Their implementation of things like TCP/IP and Java were designed
> specifically to EXCLUDE other companies from interoperating with their
> software. That way, you'd have one, and *only* one place to buy the
> things you need.
>
> The simple fact of the matter is that Micro$oft software is so full of
> holes it's pitiful. Outlook is the single largest security problem on
> the Internet. It's EASY for idiotic script kiddies to write and
> propagate viruses and worms with Outlook. No real programming or effort
> required.
>
> As you've probably figured out by now, I don't use IE or Outlook. I do
> use a Windoze based computer, since I need to run applications that are
> only available on that platform, but I keep up with the security patches
> (pretty much a full-time job in itself, thanks to the unbelievably
> flawed base operating system), but I use Mozilla and Mozilla mail for my
> Internet applications. I've also got a personal software firewall, a
> hardware firewall, a good antivirus program (that was free, by the way),
> and a spyware blocker. By the way, I don't have to have a separate
> pop-up blocker, since Mozilla can do that itself.
>
> Don't let Micro$oft off the hook! They've spent years stealing
> "innovations" and band-aiding them into their products. They've made
> almost no effort to see to it that their programs are complete, well
> tested, bug-free, and secure. For them, it's all about hype and
> marketing; not about functionality and security. Hold them accountable
> and demand they live up to their responsibilities.
>
> Mark Jerde wrote:
> > Leon wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I read an article about Microsoft security issues and it brought up a
> >>point that sorta gave another slant on the subject. Seems as though
> >>if Microsoft would put a decent firewall, spam blocker, pop up
> >>blocker, etc in to begin with many of the security problems could be
> >>solved. Trouble is however,Third party software venders would start
> >>crying about how Microsoft is cornering the market again by including
> >>free programs similar to the Internet Explorer program fiasco.
> >
> >
> > ACK.
> >
> > But they're doing it anyway.
> >
> > It's probably a good thing in the long run. Anybody besides me recall
the
> > nightmare of networking in DOS & Win 3.x, when networking wasn't built
into
> > the OS? IIRC I had one computer on my desk with 6 or 8 sets of
CONFIG.SYS /
> > AUTOEXEC.BAT.
> >
> > Utility makers have to keep finding new things Windows doesn't do well &
> > make them, knowing that in a release or two there won't be any market.
> >
> > -- Mark
> >
> >
> >
>
"John W. Fawcett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Snip
> I *don't* use Internet Exploiter, Outhouse, or any of the other Internet
> applications put out by Micro$oft. There are other safer, more secure
> applications out there that actually work quite a bit better.
Maybe Internet Explorer or Outlook would work better for you... I have
never heard of Internet Exploiter or Outhouse or Micro$oft for that matter.
OK, I was going to keep quiet on this, but...
It's all about STANDARDS, folks. There are groups out there developing
standards for everything. ANSI, the American National Standards
Institute, comes up with standards for everything from weights and
measures to high tech. The purpose of these standards is to insure that
everyone working within a discipline has a common set of references and
specifications from which to work.
Micro$oft doesn't give a *hit about standards, until they're forced to.
Their implementation of things like TCP/IP and Java were designed
specifically to EXCLUDE other companies from interoperating with their
software. That way, you'd have one, and *only* one place to buy the
things you need.
The simple fact of the matter is that Micro$oft software is so full of
holes it's pitiful. Outlook is the single largest security problem on
the Internet. It's EASY for idiotic script kiddies to write and
propagate viruses and worms with Outlook. No real programming or effort
required.
As you've probably figured out by now, I don't use IE or Outlook. I do
use a Windoze based computer, since I need to run applications that are
only available on that platform, but I keep up with the security patches
(pretty much a full-time job in itself, thanks to the unbelievably
flawed base operating system), but I use Mozilla and Mozilla mail for my
Internet applications. I've also got a personal software firewall, a
hardware firewall, a good antivirus program (that was free, by the way),
and a spyware blocker. By the way, I don't have to have a separate
pop-up blocker, since Mozilla can do that itself.
Don't let Micro$oft off the hook! They've spent years stealing
"innovations" and band-aiding them into their products. They've made
almost no effort to see to it that their programs are complete, well
tested, bug-free, and secure. For them, it's all about hype and
marketing; not about functionality and security. Hold them accountable
and demand they live up to their responsibilities.
Mark Jerde wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
>
>>I read an article about Microsoft security issues and it brought up a
>>point that sorta gave another slant on the subject. Seems as though
>>if Microsoft would put a decent firewall, spam blocker, pop up
>>blocker, etc in to begin with many of the security problems could be
>>solved. Trouble is however,Third party software venders would start
>>crying about how Microsoft is cornering the market again by including
>>free programs similar to the Internet Explorer program fiasco.
>
>
> ACK.
>
> But they're doing it anyway.
>
> It's probably a good thing in the long run. Anybody besides me recall the
> nightmare of networking in DOS & Win 3.x, when networking wasn't built into
> the OS? IIRC I had one computer on my desk with 6 or 8 sets of CONFIG.SYS /
> AUTOEXEC.BAT.
>
> Utility makers have to keep finding new things Windows doesn't do well &
> make them, knowing that in a release or two there won't be any market.
>
> -- Mark
>
>
>
Read the whole message, moron! I am a Windoze user not by choice, but
by necessity. There are a couple of applications I need that are only
available on Windoze, so I have to boot it. When you have no choice
(remember, they're a convicted monopoly), you have no choice.
Actually, my machines are dual boot (do you know what that means???), so
I spend quite a bit of my time in Linux.
I *don't* use Internet Exploiter, Outhouse, or any of the other Internet
applications put out by Micro$oft. There are other safer, more secure
applications out there that actually work quite a bit better.
Microsoft is a convicted monopoly. They have been convicted in federal
court of violating antitrust laws. They're facing a much worse
situation in Europe, where they don't have as many politicians on their
payroll. Holding a monopolist responsible for their actions and
demanding they improve their products is not hypocritical.
Get a clue.
Frank Ketchum wrote:
> "John W. Fawcett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>As you've probably figured out by now, I don't use IE or Outlook. I do
>>use a Windoze based computer, since I need to run applications that are
>>only available on that platform,
>
>
> After all that whining you call for us to hold microsoft responsible so they
> will fix their crap and you admit you are a windows user? why don't you
> follow your own demands hypocryte?
>
>
>
Bitch, bitch bitch. If you have all the answers, ask Bill for a job. He
should be hot to hire you.
"John W. Fawcett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1067347962.418914@yasure...
> uuuuuummmmmm......close the massive, gaping holes in their software that
> make this kind of stuff so easy to do? Don't turn on by default those
> holes that must be left? Put some actual engineering effort (as opposed
> to their current emphasis on marketing effort) into providing a safe,
> secure product?
>
> CW wrote:
> > It has nothing to do with them. What do you expect them to do?
> >
> >
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>What the hell is going on with all this "Microshit" spam and bullshit
> >
> > attachments
> >
> >>and why the hell isn't Microsoft doing something about it.
> >>
> >>I have to get myself a new email address every few weeks because my
> >
> > mailboxes
> >
> >>are overflowing with Micros**t spam and attachments.
> >>
> >>Microsoft won't have a single customer left if they don't act soon.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
We may safely assume you do not hold their stock.
From someone formerly involved in the business, there is _NO_ code which
cannot be broken, and if you want to make mischief, you'll want to do it on
the broadest scale possible.
Anything which attempts to deny these realities is childish whining.
"John W. Fawcett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1067347962.418914@yasure...
> uuuuuummmmmm......close the massive, gaping holes in their software that
> make this kind of stuff so easy to do? Don't turn on by default those
> holes that must be left? Put some actual engineering effort (as opposed
> to their current emphasis on marketing effort) into providing a safe,
> secure product?
Dennis [email protected] wrote:
> How does one do that sort of masking with Outlook Express?
> I don't see my email address anywhere I can access when I
> compose email or news posts.
In OE6, from the "Tools" menu select "Options..." On the "Internet
Accounts" dialog box select the "News" tab. Select the desired news account
and click the "Properties" button. On the "General" of the selected
newgroup Properties dialog box, mangle your email address as desire. Click
OK and Close.
-- Mark
Swingman wrote:
> if you don't use
> the service, take about 5 seconds of your time to turn it off.
... once you know the secret handshake. Removing an appendix is pretty easy
too if you know what you're doing.
This is pretty specialized stuff, and my experience includes hand
disassembly of Ethernet packets and writing MS DOS 1.0 TSRs.
-- Mark
"John W. Fawcett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1067347962.418914@yasure...
> uuuuuummmmmm......close the massive, gaping holes in their software that
> make this kind of stuff so easy to do? Don't turn on by default those
> holes that must be left? Put some actual engineering effort (as opposed
> to their current emphasis on marketing effort) into providing a safe,
> secure product?
>
Mail generally travels the world on SMTP protocols, which has its roots in
Unix and is very extremely easy to 'trick' into sending mail on anyone's
behalf. If you are upset about the amount of spam in this world, then you
need only dig back to 1982's RFC821 (SMTP) to aim the blame. Then, temper
that understanding with the understanding that the internet (TCP and IP) was
designed only to route around accidental blockages, and was never designed
to block malicious attacks on a host or client device.
Combine both of those facts together, and it's easy for anyone to cause
another person considerable aggravation on the internet regardless of the OS
they are running. Remember the first internet worm was released in 1988 and
tore its way through Unix systems wreaking considerable havoc in about 6
hours. The worm took advantage of many holes in in the sendmail SMTP progam.
Sendmail's latest buffer overflow vulnerability was reported Sept 26, 2003
on IBM's AIX platform. There have been hundreds of sendmail vulnerabilities
and patches over the years.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What the hell is going on with all this "Microshit" spam and bullshit
attachments
> and why the hell isn't Microsoft doing something about it.
>
> I have to get myself a new email address every few weeks because my
mailboxes
> are overflowing with Micros**t spam and attachments.
>
> Microsoft won't have a single customer left if they don't act soon.
>
Someone who has you in their address book has their computer infected from
the way I understand it. It was hitting me hard awhile ago but I only get
one now and then.
It has nothing to do with microsoft by the way
Doug Miller wrote:
> Mickeysoft *does* have "massive, gaping holes
> in their software". And they *do* enable by default many things that should be
> disabled.
The first to come to my mind are 65,000 ports.
Windows Message Service, there's no known users of this 'feature',
except for marketers. The short story is someone once had a messenger
service , in order for MS not to be left behind they made their own
messenger service, They bundled it in their OSes, set it to install and
go active by default.
> Steve Gibson has a good discussion of this at www.grc.com .
Excellent site.
I read an article about Microsoft security issues and it brought up a point
that sorta gave another slant on the subject. Seems as though if Microsoft
would put a decent firewall, spam blocker, pop up blocker, etc in to begin
with many of the security problems could be solved. Trouble is
however,Third party software venders would start crying about how Microsoft
is cornering the market again by including free programs similar to the
Internet Explorer program fiasco.
"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Frank Ketchum wrote:
>
> > It has nothing to do with microsoft by the way
>
> That is one valid point of view. Another is like a homeowner needing a
> porch railing or s/he's liable if someone falls off the porch. Microsoft
is
> getting better but IMO they've been missing (or not activating by default)
> adequate guards and railing for years.
>
> -- Mark
>
>
"John W. Fawcett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Read the whole message, moron! I am a Windoze user not by choice, but
> by necessity. There are a couple of applications I need that are only
> available on Windoze, so I have to boot it. When you have no choice
> (remember, they're a convicted monopoly), you have no choice.
>
I am not the moron who expects everyone else to boycott microsoft, except
for you because you have to use it. The whole point is that a lot of us
HAVE to use it. I even quoted the part of your message indicating that you
had to use it. In your second post you show yourself to be more of a
hypocrite by accusing me of not reading your whole post when it is clear you
didn't read mine.
"John W. Fawcett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> As you've probably figured out by now, I don't use IE or Outlook. I do
> use a Windoze based computer, since I need to run applications that are
> only available on that platform,
After all that whining you call for us to hold microsoft responsible so they
will fix their crap and you admit you are a windows user? why don't you
follow your own demands hypocryte?
"John W. Fawcett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1067439177.519739@yasure...
> All absolutely correct and undisputed. The gaping holes I refer to are
> the ones that allow non-programmer script kiddies to create malicious
> messages that trash machines just because someone opened a message.
Not sure I follow you here. The outlook feature to automatically run code
was closed in the December 2000 service pack. So it's been nearly 3 years
that patch has been available.
"Script kiddies" will always be able to cause problems on unpatched
machines, regardless of the OS that is running. Redhat 7.2 honeypots are
'owned' in days, Redhat 6.x honeypots are 'owned' in minutes. The point here
is that EVERY OS needs to be patched to remain secure.
We can debate the frequency of the patches, but I'll simply point out that
most all unix/linux installs have a very nice automatic patching mechanism
in place. That wouldn't be there if it wasn't needed :) And in fact, one of
Redhat's revenue streams ($) comes from providing quick, efficient updates
of critical patches. And all those updates and patches for just $179/year.
> Use firewalls (both hardware and software -- Tiny Personal
> Firewall is very good and reasonably priced see
Agree very much that a personal firewall shoudl be mandatory for anyone
connecting to the net.
Frank Ketchum wrote:
> It has nothing to do with microsoft by the way
That is one valid point of view. Another is like a homeowner needing a
porch railing or s/he's liable if someone falls off the porch. Microsoft is
getting better but IMO they've been missing (or not activating by default)
adequate guards and railing for years.
-- Mark
In article <[email protected]>, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>We may safely assume you do not hold their stock.
>
>From someone formerly involved in the business, there is _NO_ code which
>cannot be broken, and if you want to make mischief, you'll want to do it on
>the broadest scale possible.
>
True, but some things are more easily broken than others -- Mickeysoft more
easily than most, largely because of their long-standing inattention to
security issues. Case in point: buffer-overflow exploits are easily prevented
by use of proper programming techniques, yet Mickeysoft continues to
distribute software with this vulnerability.
The broad scale on which Mickeysoft operating systems are attacked is due both
to their broad distribution *and* to their well-known vulnerability to attack,
IMO in approximately equal measure.
>Anything which attempts to deny these realities is childish whining.
No, it's constructive criticism. Mickeysoft *does* have "massive, gaping holes
in their software". And they *do* enable by default many things that should be
disabled. Steve Gibson has a good discussion of this at www.grc.com .
>
>"John W. Fawcett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:1067347962.418914@yasure...
>> uuuuuummmmmm......close the massive, gaping holes in their software that
>> make this kind of stuff so easy to do? Don't turn on by default those
>> holes that must be left? Put some actual engineering effort (as opposed
>> to their current emphasis on marketing effort) into providing a safe,
>> secure product?
>
>
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Mark Jerde wrote:
> In OE6, from the "Tools" menu select "Options..." On the "Internet
> Accounts" dialog box select the "News" tab. Select the desired news
> account and click the "Properties" button. On the "General" of the
> selected newgroup Properties dialog box, mangle your email address as
> desire. Click OK and Close.
... and proofreed BEFORE posting. 'On the "General" TAB of the...'
... 'mangle your email address as desireD.' Gack!
How does one do that sort of masking with Outlook Express?
I don't see my email address anywhere I can access when I
compose email or news posts.
Dennis Vogel
"Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If you want to avoid (or at least minimize) your exposure, do NOT use your
correct email address when posting to newsgroups.
> Assuming that you have email address like [email protected] ,
mask it in some way like [email protected]
>
> In any event, using your actual email address is asking for trouble.
Since 1991, one of my business interests is in a network consulting firm as
one of the founding partners. We routinely use net send and messenger
service on lans and wans to alert and notify users of upcoming events like
system maintenance and upgrade windows. We've even written proprietary
software to allow management to make company wide announcements using the
service. In short, it is a very legitimate, and still MUCH used, 'service'
on many current networks. In addition a lot of software was, and still is,
written to utilize the messenger service on networks.
Not to mention that if your network security is up to snuff you shouldn't
have to worry about "marketers" using NetBios or UDP traffic to send you
messages through the service ... if you don't use the service, take about 5
seconds of your time to turn it off.
Where do you guys come up with this type of BS ... much less spreading it
around a woodworking forum?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/21/03
"Mark"wrote in message
> Windows Message Service, there's no known users of this 'feature',
> except for marketers. The short story is someone once had a messenger
> service , in order for MS not to be left behind they made their own
> messenger service, They bundled it in their OSes, set it to install and
> go active by default.
[email protected] (GTO69RA4) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> It's a self-propigating virus that fakes email addresses. No relation to
> Microsoft, and nothing they can do about it.
Yes, yes, no, and no.
Yes it is a virus, but only in the sense that it is harmful software.
Yes, it forges email headers to make it appear that the email came
from someone who did not send it. However, the top-most received header
is added by your mailserver so unless your own mailserver is configured
to forge headers you can identify the mailserver, though not the user,
who did send the virus.
Yes, it is related to Microsoft because, like almost all so-called worms
and viruses it utilizes standard plug-in features of Microsoft email
clients and/or servers. The overwhelming number of viruses and worms
on the internet do NOT exploit bugs, they simply plug into or otherwise
utilize standard features built into Microsoftware. It is also important
to note that these 'features' were never potentially useful to the
recipient of the email, but rather to the sender. These 'features'
are being used by the virus-writers EXACTLY (in the programmatic sense)
the way Microsoft intended when they were written into the software in
the first place.
While there is nothing Microsoft can do directly concerning software that
is already installed, Microsoft can (and does) make patches available
for free. Unfortunately, some of these are way too big to be reliably
downloaded over dial-up connections and may hose your computer if the
connection is broken in mid-patch.
For example, consider what happens to those of you reading this with
OE:
begin example
If this were malicios code instead of plain text those reading this
with OutLook Express would now be executing that malicious code.
Doh!
--
FF
"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> We may safely assume you do not hold their stock.
>
> From someone formerly involved in the business, there is _NO_ code which
> cannot be broken, and if you want to make mischief, you'll want to do it
on
> the broadest scale possible.
>
> Anything which attempts to deny these realities is childish whining.
No kidding.... Attacking Microsoft hits more targets than attacking another
OS. More bang for you destructive buck. As for those that complain that
certain "switches or holes" should be closed as a default, you will find an
equal amount of users that would complain if the "switches or holes" are
closed by default. You can only please about half the people most of the
time.
If you want to avoid (or at least minimize) your exposure, do NOT use your correct email address when posting to newsgroups.
Assuming that you have email address like [email protected] , mask it in some way like [email protected]
In any event, using your actual email address is asking for trouble.
--
Al Reid
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for sure that just ain't so." --- Mark Twain
"GTO69RA4" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> It's a self-propigating virus that fakes email addresses. No relation to
> Microsoft, and nothing they can do about it.
>
> GTO(John)
>
> >What the hell is going on with all this "Microshit" spam and bullshit
> >attachments
> >and why the hell isn't Microsoft doing something about it.
> >
> >I have to get myself a new email address every few weeks because my mailboxes
> >are overflowing with Micros**t spam and attachments.
> >
> >Microsoft won't have a single customer left if they don't act soon.
In article <[email protected]>, "Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"John W. Fawcett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
[snipped]
Guys, we've had enough problems with the trolls, we don't need the
regulars getting into public pissing contests too. Would you mind taking this
one to private e-mail? Thanks.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
It has nothing to do with them. What do you expect them to do?
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What the hell is going on with all this "Microshit" spam and bullshit
attachments
> and why the hell isn't Microsoft doing something about it.
>
> I have to get myself a new email address every few weeks because my
mailboxes
> are overflowing with Micros**t spam and attachments.
>
> Microsoft won't have a single customer left if they don't act soon.
>
>
>
>