Slashdot Mirror
Game Theory, Antivirus Improvements Explain Rise In Mac Malware
Sparrowvsrevolution writes "Four years ago, security researcher Adam J. O'Donnell used game theory to predict in a paper for IEEE Security and Privacy when malware authors would start targeting Macs. Based on some rough assumptions and a little algebra, he found that it would only become profitable to target Apple's population of users when they reached 16% market share. So why are we now seeing mass attacks on Macs like the Flashback trojan when Apple only has 11% market share? O'Donnell says it turns out he may have underestimated the effectiveness of the antivirus used by most Windows users, which now makes overconfident Mac users a relatively vulnerable and much more appealing target. Based on current antivirus detection rates, O'Donnell's equations now show that victimizing Macs becomes a profitable alternative to PCs at just 6.5% market share."
How it security by obscurity treating you now?
So his equations show that he's still wrong, but differently. Good job!
We all know it's due to momentary lapse in prayers to the Almighty Jobs.
PC FTW.. Apple fanboys are eccentric, hybrid-driving limp wrists.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
It doesn't matter what percentage malware authors start targeting Macs, they are immune to such things. Malware is a Windows only problem. Sheesh...
It may be true, but user ignorance and social engineering will always be avenues of attack.
In all of the fights between Windows and Mac users over the disparity in viruses for both platforms, I've never seen a Windows user point out the fact that Windows is often used on infrastructure that is valuable to compromise. No major business runs their corporate infrastructure on Macs. No major sites with valuable data I know of are hosted on Apple hardware. What has changed with the marketshare is that now Macs are used by the upper-middle and upper classes extensively at work and at home. So even at 6.5% of the market, you're far more likely now to compromise a Mac with valuable data or access to it now.
Compromise a Mac today and you might get access to a corporate network, a richer man/woman's bank information, etc. That wasn't true 10 years ago.
Back in the 1980s, Macs were very tempting virus targets. They had multitasking operating systems at a time when the rest of us were running DOS or CP/M (although Amiga users and users of DOS multitaskers like DESQview had a small market share). Luckily this was before the internet, so the only real risk was downloaded software.
Different architectures, different engineering, different QA, control of the hardware.
Macs are more secure. That doesn't make the impenetrable. What it does do is give experts in the fields and excuse to hit it hard. It took a long time to get something.
No I don't own a Mac, but you can't just compare them as the same based on simply market share.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Perhaps the model wasn't off by much, rather the rate of mac growth being so high that 16% is already a guarantee with the current adoption/switch-over rate.
He says himself that the equation is vastly oversimplified, and a small change in antivirus detection range changes the answer from 16 to 6%. That means the equation is all-but useless and pointless to try to "predict" anything except, apparently, in hindsight.
I could have plucked any number I liked out of the air and wrote a (reasonable) equation to make it come out with whatever answer I wanted, even basing it on "game theory" (which has very, very, very little relevance here, actually) - I could have done that even before I graduated in mathematics (including Game Theory) over a decade ago.
When enough Mac's exist to make it viable (and market share has little to do with it compared to "number of computers active on the Internet" of that particular model), viruses will target them. Guess what, same for every other platform on the planet. If someone miraculously sells a popular device based on MINIX that millions start buying, eventually someone will write a virus for that platform.
Seriously - don't give it the press.
Let's see what our wise men can come up with:
1) Write a "scientific" paper, make assumptions, use some "algorithm", predict event A
2) Wait
3) Observe empirical evidence
4) Revise initial paper
5) Bask in peer admiration
Did I miss anything?
Now even you can quote Game Theory thanks to Stanford Engineering online course offerings!
come on fhqwhgads
After the 2013 NCAA tournament is over, I will show you a formula I have that would have predicted ALL of the winners of each game! (Pardon the wait, but I may have to recalibrate my formula in light of whatever evidence shows itself in 2013.)
Tis a feature, allowed by the Almighty Jobs as a test thy faith in Apple .. so only mayest the True Believers be granted the next iDevice.
Since the number of hosts a virus will likely infest grows exponentialy with the share of the population not imune to it (until that share reaches somewhere near 25% of the hosts), those anti-virus should make infecting a Windows machine orders of magnitude harder.
As usual, the press article doesn't include the actual equations. So, it is impossible to know if the study took actual infection spread equations into account.
Rethinking email
Step 1: Get infected
Step 2: Get your shit jacked
Step 3: There is no step 3
While I realize there may be some outrage over the "overconfident" label, it does make sense in terms of learned behavior. More specifically, Windows users have known malware has been rampant for so long that:
A) they're used to having to use antivirus, firewalls and other "security" type apps
B) Windows has steadily improved its built-in firewall and anti-trojan features to combat real and perceived vulnerability
C) Windows-based PC OEMs and system builders install anti-virus by default and have for quite some time now.
I can't say whether Macs get a/v software by default but despite our joking about macs not being susceptible to malware, that view is held by far too many mac users. While it might be true statistically speaking relative to Windows, it is unhelpful in being a rightfully vigilant denizen of this wretched hive of scum and villainy we call the Internet.
Security through obscurity is no way to go through life.
Apple has dominated the high end of the -personal- computer market at least in the US, making it a more lucrative target for attempts to steal personal information.
On the other side, is there any way to measure how easy/difficult it's been to develop successful viruses on platforms, MacOS, Windows (XP, Vista, 7, 8), various Linux distributions, etc?
Probably failing to take into account the value of the targets compromised was the biggest flaw.
Since the average apple user will be far more profitable (apples are a luxury good and thus will have a higher percentage of wealthy users) to compromise than the average pc user, he needed to adjust the numbers downward to take that into account.
I'm not a fan of ether company, but one partially successful trojan later... and now OS X is deemed the number one target? i'd still trust OS X more than Windows. The perceived statistics here seem overwhelmingly skewed on this topic recently.
Virus, malware. 220, 221, whatever it takes.
Are you saying that Macs are not obscure now? Because, according to TFA, they only have 6.5% market share.
Or are you saying that they were never "obscure" but no one else had been able to compromise them on a mass scale because most Mac users did NOT run anti-virus software?
Or are you attempting to mock the person who's prediction failed and so he changed the numbers and assumptions until his prediction reflected the current situation?
What Apple Users say is:
1) There have been no viruses yet.
2) There are no (or now almost no) trojans in the wild that attack macs.
What Apple Haters say, is that all Apple Users claim they are "immune" from attacks, twisting the meaning of the above.
Even now, few Mac users would really be vulnerable to the Java based trojan that exists because it involves installing Java after navigating to a site that houses the trojan... it's not the same as being immune, but it does mean the risk of catching the trojan is low.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Back in the 1980s, Macs were very tempting virus targets. They had multitasking operating systems at a time....
But that was not why they were tempting. They were tempting targets because it was REALLY easy to spread a boot-sector virus on floppy discs, even when you didn't hand out the discs yourself you'd just include it on a floppy disc image of some game or utility that was being pirated and it would spread like wildfire from that person to all friends...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
fastes7-Growing GAY OpenBSD. How many
Thank you SlashDot for attracting intelligent commenters/users. After reading the blogs and comments on other sites, I had lost faith that there were any intelligent people left. Apologies for not discussing the subject in particular... just needed to say it.
This is one of those things that drives me nuts. Everyone, learn your definitions.
From Wikipedia...
"A computer virus is a computer program that can replicate itself[1] and spread from one computer to another. The term "virus" is also commonly, but erroneously used, to refer to other types of malware, including but not limited to adware and spyware programs that do not have a reproductive ability."
Note the words REPLICATE ITSELF. To date, not Mac malware has done this. Drive by installs and trojans are out there, but it drives me nuts when people don't classify these things correctly. The generic term is Malware.
I am an Mac user (Mac Administrator to be exact), but I squarely put the blame on Apple for this latest trojan. Java was patched a month before the latest Flashback variant came out. If I was a malware developer, I too would go after Java on the Mac. Apple has always been lazy about issuing these patches after the Windows versions. Hackers then just reverse engineer the latest Windows Java patch and boom, you know how to exploit it on the Mac. Apple's fix, disable Java. Lazy.
Mac users, stop being smug about security. The point of this article is dead on. The only reason we we're not attacked before is because of Market share. It had nothing to do with the Mac being superior to Windows (although it is in other regards, had to throw the fanboy line in). Any OS is vulnerable to malware. More often these attacks are becoming targeted at stupid people. I personally have been concerned about the growth in the Mac market share because it was obvious these attacks would become more frequent.
Anti-virus would not have helped with Flashback, as it spread before any AV client would have picked it up. The best things you can do as a Mac user is:
1. Patch your machine regularily
2. Demand Apple get more serious about these kind of things. They are slowly moving there, but it is always better to be proactive. Mountain Lion with code signing will go a long way to protecting the lay user.
3. Think before you put your password in. If something doesn't look right, don't ok it.
4. Avoid sites that you don't know or trust.
5. Turn off Java except when you need it. This is the number one problem on the Mac as to my point above.
It's a factor insofar as it is part of the process of turning Macs into status symbols. Price alone is just one variable; it's the price factor which separates the product from the hoi polloi who couldn't stomach a $2000 professional laptop when a $500 meets their needs easily. It's everything from the packaging, to the build quality and taste, to the marketing and product integration.
Macs were always expensive, but 10 years ago, they were more of an eccentricity or specialty than a high quality replacement for a Windows PC for most people with some money.
See subject-line & these examples of security on Linux then!
---
2012:
Medicaid hack update: 500,000 records and 280,000 SSNs stolen:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/medicaid-hack-update-500000-records-and-280000-ssns-stolen/11444
So, what's dts.utah.gov running everyone?
LINUX (and yes, it got HACKED, chumps) -> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=dts.utah.gov
What's health.utah.gov running too??
YOU GUESS IT: LINUX AGAIN -> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=health.utah.gov
* 2012's starting out just like 2011 did below!
===
2011:
KERNEL.ORG COMPROMISED - The Cracking of Kernel.org: (very bad - do you trust it now?)
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/08/31/2321232/Kernelorg-Compromised
---
Linux.com pwned in fresh round of cyber break-ins: (lol)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/12/more_linux_sites_down/
---
Mysql.com Hacked, Made To Serve Malware:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/09/26/2218238/mysqlcom-hacked-made-to-serve-malware
What's that site running? You guessed it - Linux -> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=mysql.com
---
London Stock Exchange serving malware:
http://slashdot.org/submission/1484548/London-Stock-Exchange-Web-Site-Serving-Malware
(I mean hey - NOT ONLY DID LINUX FALL FLAT ON ITS FACE less than a few minutes into the job http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/02/19/0147232/London-Stock-Exchange-Price-Errors-Emerged-At-Linux-Launch, & crash not only ONCE, but TWICE there? You see "Linux 'fine security'" in motion @ the LSE too!)
---
DUQU ROOTKIT/BOTNET BEING SERVED FROM LINUX SERVERS: (very recent):
http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/11/30/1610228/duqu-attackers-managed-to-wipe-cc-servers
---
Linux Foundation, Linux.com Sites Down To Fix Security Breach: (lol)
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/09/11/1325212/linux-foundation-linuxcom-sites-down-to-fix-security-breach
---
Linux's showing in CA's breached recently too? Ok: (very, Very, VERY BAD for ecommerce, online shopping, banking, etc./et al)
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=StartCom.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=GlobalSign.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=Comodo.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=DigiCert.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.gemnet.nl
The list of CA Servers BREACHED that RUN LINUX (StartCom, GlobalSign, DigiCert, Comodo, GemNet)... per these articles verifying that:
Mac have no A/V stuff on them by default. Apple does do some anti-malware fighting on a per-item basis these days with updates, but there's no A/V program as you'd normally think.
You can get them, but they don't come installed, and Apple doesn't have or recommend any because they are interested in admitting that viruses are now a Mac thing too. Some of the major A/V vendors have Mac versions. Kinda hit and miss as to which companies have decided it is worth it to port to the Mac. Sophos is one I know does (it is what we have at work, I hate it with the fire of a thousand suns, but I can say it has a Windows, Mac and Linux version).
Flashback is not a virus, it's a trojan. This is sort of like saying to someone who bragged that they don't get skunks in their neighborhood "Well, after those coyotes ate your dog, I guess you'll be taking that skunk problem a lot more seriously now!" Viruses and Trojans work completely differently - one infects programs and data files, then spreads all over your computer when you access those files, and the other is a program all of it's own that hides and sneaks onto your computer, then runs separately. Viruses infect your files, Trojans invade your whole system (and generally don't attach themselves to individual files).
/slam head against desk
Difference between Virus and Trojan:
Trojan disguises itself, pretending to be something else, to get into your system (named after the Trojan Horse.) A program that says pretends to be a photo file (with a jpg icon) or pose as an antivirus installer would count as a Trojan.
Virus simply activates and goes into your system when, lets say, you insert a floppy disk or visit a website. As long as it can infect a machine without the user opening it up, it's considered a virus.
The last java based Flashback was a virus, not a Trojan.
It required the user to do something, in particular, provide a password.
So run an Apple II.
Sure, it may seem like a pain, but I'd wager the number of malware for the Apple II is quite low. That, and those 5 1/4 floppies last forever.
It doesn't matter the platform. Mac, Windows, Linux. Stupid users get viruses. They're the ones clicking on every farking attachment in every farking e-mail they receive without first doing a simple visual check of the email (ie. reading it). They're the ones downloading executables from unknown or untrusted sources and running them on their computers. They're the ones that believe every little farking web browser pop-up informing them that their computer is infected and THEY MUST CLICK HERE NOW!!!!! (Hint: web browser != anti-virus )
The first variant did. The second did not.
Just hit up the previous Slashdot Flashback article and you'll see the article title that specifically said that it could go "without user interaction." -- i.e. it was a drive by that installed itself without user interaction.
Sounds like a virus (by anon's definition) to me.
I have a different interpretation: Trojans are applications that pose as legit programs (like codecs or games) that trick you to run the program. Viruses (trojans being a subset of viruses) is any software that was specifically written to do bad stuff (delete files, spam, etc). This may or may not be with user interactions.
So why isn't Linux getting tons of viruses? Presumably "they" don't care about your myspace account so this isn't a home computer. "They" only care about corporate stuff, much of which is hosted on Linux now. Even if Linux isn't on the desktop, surely there would be Linux viruses piggybacking on Windows viruses.
But they aren't, so you have a hole in your logic.
If your next argument is "but they don't need to be," then you're arguing against yourself---Windows systems are the compromising factor, and you don't even need to compromise your secure systems ... you just need a Windows user on your network.
/slam head against desk
Difference between Virus and Trojan:
Trojan disguises itself, pretending to be something else, to get into your system (named after the Trojan Horse.) A program that says pretends to be a photo file (with a jpg icon) or pose as an antivirus installer would count as a Trojan.
Virus simply activates and goes into your system when, lets say, you insert a floppy disk or visit a website. As long as it can infect a machine without the user opening it up, it's considered a virus.
The last java based Flashback was a virus, not a Trojan.
Not only did it require the user to provide a password, as oh_my_080990890 points out, but even if it hadn't, it still wouldn't be a virus, and it still would be a trojan. Trojan versus virus is not a case of "happens with or without user interaction". Viruses infect files - VBS viruses can even infect .html files (ie: Code Red and others from a while back), or image files, or anything else, but they do need a file there to infect, of whatever type of file that virus is intended to infect. Yes, the boot sector on a floppy disk is also a type of file. Trojans pretend to be some other type of program, and get the user to run them - in this case, by being a Java applet in a web page, which of course means that if you've shut off Java running in your browser (I do because it annoys me. The only site I commonly use that wants to run Java is my work webmail, which oddly works better with Java disabled completely...) it's not a problem, regardless of your operating system, and it's not a virus, it's a trojan. Even the article Tharsman (at ars technica) linked to calls it a Trojan, and not a virus. Same with the initial article way up at the top.
The Mac people (and their advertizing) have been saying "We don't have viruses", and they're still right. (For now.) Regardless of the coyotes eating people's dogs, there still isn't a skunk problem.
Linux on the other hand, actually does have a virus available - there were several slashdot articles about it a few years ago, provided by a security researcher at an AV company. In order to get it to run, you need to install a specific version of the Linux kernel, and then apply a patch kindly provided by Linus Torvalds after he analyzed the code to figure out why it wouldn't work for him. It takes advantage of three separate kernel vulnerabilities which, sadly, never all co-existed in the kernel simultaneously (unless you install the patch). Much like just about everything else fancy at the time (expensive video cards, TV tuners, ...), getting the virus to actually work required re-compiling your own kernel.
In the past we used to think that we were totally safe because in the past most hackers were like Dogs and didn't "shite where they sleep". but now we are among the rest of you realizing that the new generation of hackers are a truely dogs, and eat their shite after they poop it......
MacOSX, because making *NIX better is a lot better than waiting for Micro$loth to fix Windows
Could it possibly be that the whole idea of calculating at what market share Apple users will get attacked is a tenuous theory and he was lucky to even be within 5%?
Currently hooked on AMP
boy, there was a slight chuckle when I read that.
Problem is... everyone is getting all butt hurt over stupid semantics. Virus and trojan cannot be compared, because one is payload, one is methodology.
Here is a really simple sentence that in summary, to anyone intelligent, would end all of this.
[Potentially] every computer/OS combo and variant is susceptible in some form or fashion to have code executed with or without specific intent and resulting in undesirable effects.
Right? I didn't say any of the "bad words". So, everyone agree? Good, let's end the bickering.
-AI
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
As Lord Kelvin (yes, as in K the temp unit), said, in remarking about Physics,
a) all of physcis boils down to reading a dial
b) a number uncertain to an order of magnitude is wrong
So this guy is off by only 2.5-3Xover a few years; not wrong, but not right, either
Anything can be made to fit explanations after the fact. This article reads like the bubble heads talking about the causes behind financial market movement. They're clueless and it's all bullshit.
The Windows AV market is saturated so the AV companies are all about talking up the Mac and Mobile malware scare ...
AccountKiller
"Nice roundup of articles, but at the end of the day anyone that uses a blanket statement like "Linux = secure" is as stupid as anyone that says Macs are virus-proof." - by Tharsman (1364603) on Friday April 20, @02:07PM (#39748269)
The articles were there to make the point with "evidences thereof" as to my statements. Especially to this statement of yours which seems to "2nd that motion::
"I know Linux server admins, and all of them take security seriously and acknowledge they are as vulnerable as any other OS if you just lay back and look at them pretty. You have to make sure they are updated, secure, and properly configured for your needs with minimal permissions granted to processes that need them." - by Tharsman (1364603) on Friday April 20, @02:07PM (#39748269)
Agreed, & they're being sensible + realistic is all, as they ought to be regarding that much.
* As far as that "sentiment" around here though, well... I've been coming around this website since 2002 (posting since 2005 pretty steadily) & it's VERY "Pro-*NIX" around here & a great deal of that type of sentiment was spread around here (Linux = secure, Windows != secure, etc./et al).
However:
Since the things I posted have been happening & especially due to ANDROID, a linux itself being so massively "hit" by attacks the past few years since it's "king of the smartphone", thus showing once any OS gains a lot of "easy meat end users"?
They're not doing nearly as much as they used to, less & less...
It wouldn't be too wise to keep that up now that things are changing for both *NIX variants in MacOSX + Linux being more used than before (iirc, Apple's around a 10% overall marketshare, & Linux is around 1%, on end-users desktops....
Which is more than both were used before - & that said?
Here comes the attacks on them more than before (since more possible potential victims exist now, it's worth writing attacks for those OS platforms now too!)
APK
P.S.=> Anything can be attacked & penentrated if not setup as securely as possible... & by default, Windows isn't setup anywhere near how it could be, such as:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&qs=ns&form=QBLH
Neither is Linux (not even SeLinux bearing distros - hence WHY it was "bolted-on" by the NSA in many distros but still not as 'security-hardened' as it can be):
http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22Security+Hardening+Linux%22&go=&qs=ns&form=QBLH
Hence, those guides for doing that... better than it is by default, even on SeLinux bearing distros.
Plus, certainly not MacOS X either - Not "outta-the-box"/"oem stock", for sure & because yes, they have guides for doing that, here:
http://www.apple.com/support/security/guides/
Which pretty much show anyone how it comes "by default" (which is NOT that "security-hardened").
The CIS Tool I noted that used in the link for "security-hardening" Windows, also works for Linux + MacOS X also & other *NIX variants like Solaris + more... makes it FAR easier to do in fact, & almost FUN!
... apk
we know it's you, commodore_64_love
troll with an IQ of 64 anyway
Than via "fuzzers" or w\ kernel level debuggers on closed source code to try to find security vulnerabilities in it... malware makers (just like the folks that patch Linux too) have an advantage in that capacity also - that door "swings both ways"... That's just a fact!
* E.G.-> Taking Open Source code & step tracing thru a compiler's easier than doing the above 2 methods to closed source, by far...
Thus, it actually makes it simpler to attack for a determined hacker/cracker who wants "in" on Linux...
I.E.-> Plus, Fuzzers are a LOT of "guesswork", & you'd better be damned sharp in assembly language to try it with a kernel level debugger on closed source in both cases!
(Fact is, it's simpler reading higher level languages is why to try to "find holes" in a std. compiler & step-tracing changing variables values in watch Windows to try it).
Lack of marketshare/usershare, especially with less security conscious "normal" end users (vs. say techies/admins), is what protected Linux the most, via "security-by-obscurity"...
Not anymore.
What shoes anyone that is ANDROID (a Linux variant) on smartphones where it has the most marketshare/end users of less than "super-technical" understanding on it. It's being "hit" left & right for years now, due to it being MOST used on that computing platform.
APK
P.S.=> All I know is, the world's "wising up" to the fact any OS can be "nuked" once the malware makers "target it for termination"... apk
It didn't. It attempted the user to enter a password to dive deeper into the system, but it was perfectly functional without the extra priviledges.
So the linux virus was nothing more than a proof of concept.
Flying cars have been proven as a concept, by the way... guess how soon most people will be driving one?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The real target opportunity is more complicated than most people say.
1). You need a large enough pool of machines to make the malware authors time worthwhile;
2). The loaded software is of varying quality. Some platforms do better on GA release quality;
3). Administrative attention matters. Some platforms (and some industries) have better patching records than others;
4). Don't want to overstate this, but a malware author is theoretically at risk by their activities. Some industrial sectors might be more dangerous to attack;
5). Malware is mostly designed to extract money these days, either directly or indirectly. Therefore the commercial opportunity of the target systems matters;
6). Malware authors need some knowlege of their target. Could be anything, technical, psychological, industrial, whatever. If the malware authors cannot find and exploit their target, there's no security event.
/slam head against desk
Difference between Virus and Trojan:
To most people the difference is blah blah blah blah it's a Virus.
Mac owners tend to occupy a higher-income demographic, increasing their attractiveness to criminals. Would you target someone with a $500 bank account or a $50,000 account?
This factor helps Linux, with its third world popularity, but complacency is always the Devil's playground.
A technically unjustified downmod of my post won't hide it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2800343&cid=39748051
APK
P.S.=> I know "the Penguins" around here can't handle truths/facts, but to mod my post down that has facts/truths in it only makes me bring it back into view, like so... apk
Sorry, that won't hide 'em -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2800343&cid=39750263
APK
P.S.=> I know "the Penguins" around here can't handle truths/facts, but to mod my posts down that have facts/truths in them only makes me bring them back into view, like so... apk
Sorry, that won't hide my posts -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2800343&cid=39750263
APK
P.S.=> I know "the Penguins" around here can't handle truths/facts, but to mod my posts down that have facts/truths in them only makes me bring them back into view, like so... apk
You do realize, do you not, that /. admins have unlimited mod-points and are not shy about nuking your worthless posts straight to -1 where they belong?
You also realize that the "Flag" icon that they created makes it very easy to bring your posts to their attention?
And finally, you realize that by "admin" I am referring to Samzenpus, Soulskill, Timothy, etc., not your average /. user who's been given a handful of modpoints?
You do realize you're not an admin & shouldn't speak for them?
APK
P.S.=> Go away chump - grow an intellect before you try to "take me on", because your puny brain is NOT up to the job, period... lol!
... apk Go away chump - grow an intellect before you try to "take me on", because your puny brain is NOT up to the job, period... lol!
You completely ignored the questions and directed an ad-hominem attack at me because "(I'm) not an admin & shouldn't speak for them".
I'm NOT going to let you, trolls here http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2800343&cid=39748051
and
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2800343&cid=39750263
APK
P.S.=> That'll drag them RIGHT BACK INTO VIEW, so all your WEAK & EFFETE "retaliations" via technically unjustified moddowns of my posts? NULLIFIED, easily...
This? Hehehe, this was just (& you KNOW I've gotta say it, as-is-per-my-usual 'inimitable style'?) "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'"...
(Especially vs. trolls whose only 'weapon' is modding down posts to hide truths/facts they cannot handle...)
... apk
I'm NOT going to let you hide facts/truths trolls, here http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2800343&cid=39748051
and here too:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2800343&cid=39750263
APK
P.S.=> That'll drag them RIGHT BACK INTO VIEW, so all your WEAK & EFFETE "retaliations" via technically unjustified moddowns of my posts? NULLIFIED, easily...
This? Hehehe, this was just (& you KNOW I've gotta say it, as-is-per-my-usual 'inimitable style'?) "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'"...
(Especially vs. trolls whose only 'weapon' is modding down posts to hide truths/facts they cannot handle...)
... apk
I'm NOT going to let you hide facts/truths trolls, here http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2800343&cid=39748051
and here too:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2800343&cid=39750263
APK
P.S.=> That'll drag them RIGHT BACK INTO VIEW, so all your WEAK & EFFETE "retaliations" via technically unjustified moddowns of my posts? NULLIFIED, easily...
This? Hehehe, this was just (& you KNOW I've gotta say it, as-is-per-my-usual 'inimitable style'?) "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'"...
(Especially vs. trolls whose only 'weapon' is modding down posts to hide truths/facts they can't handle...)
... apk
I'm NOT going to let you hide facts/truths trolls, here http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2800343&cid=39748051
and here too:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2800343&cid=39750263
APK
P.S.=> That'll drag them RIGHT BACK INTO VIEW, so all your WEAK & EFFETE "retaliations" via technically unjustified moddowns of my posts? NULLIFIED, easily...
This? Hehehe, this was just (& you KNOW I've gotta say it, as-is-per-my-usual 'inimitable style'?) "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'"...
(Especially vs. trolls whose only 'weapon' is modding down posts to hide truths/facts they cannot handle...)
... apk
I'm NOT going to let you hide facts/truths trolls, here http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2800343&cid=39748051
and here too:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2800343&cid=39750263
APK
P.S.=> That'll drag them RIGHT BACK INTO VIEW, so all your WEAK & EFFETE "retaliations" via technically unjustified moddowns of my posts? NULLIFIED, easily...
This? Hehehe, this was just (& you KNOW I've gotta say it, as-is-per-my-usual 'inimitable style'?) "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'"...
(Especially vs. trolls whose only 'weapon' is modding down posts to hide truths/facts they cannot handle...)
... apk
u fail. fail troll is fail.
P.S. Apparently I do speak for the admins because every post you've made gets nuked to -1. Eat shit and die.
P.P.S. The fail troll would probably like to know that someone is impersonating APK here http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2808773&cid=39792165
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2800343&cid=39748051
I'll just drag it back into view & show how "secure" linux is (not).
Considering how many trolls have alternate registered accounts here?
B.S.!
In fact, here is an example thereof!
(Of a troll who literally stalked & trolled me as AC posts, using both accounts to mod me down in collusion with others she/he ASKED them to do with him/her):
---
barbara.hudson@unjava.com from http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2C+not+Barbie
=
barbara.hudson@barbara-hudson.com from http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson
---
Which proves that assertion of mine, easily... what is quoted from that scum next does it even moreso:
"Wait until he starts on another kick, then reply to him as an AC. It's the new meme". - by tomhudson (43916) on Sunday May 09 2010, @08:29PM (#32150544) Homepage Journal FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1646272&cid=32150544
So, as you can see, quoted from TomHudson the "AC Stalker Troll" himself, right up there in black & white quoted?
He's/She's telling others to "mod me down" + ac stalk me, because that's ALL he/she (and you + those like you) has vs. facts & figures etc. that I generally use!
Yes - Just another TomHudson anonymous reply attack on myself here too, after all, after the above, what else can anyone assume?
Which again - PROVES that assertion along with this quote of his/hers here when he/she trolled me for months here (and doubtless hasn't stopped, breaking the rules of this forums telling others to join him/her in it & laws also for stalking etc./et al):
APK
P.S.=> Not even a GOOD troll on your part, fool... easily seen through!
QUESTION: Is your & trolls' fav. color "TRANSPARENT", or what?? apk figures etc. that I generally use - It's probably as you suspect yourself: Just another TomHudson anonymous reply attack on myself... apk