yeah, I know the lead car will take a huge hit in miles/km per gallon/liter but still, you see where I'm going.
Actually, it won't. Unless the rear cars shut off their engines and physically connect up to the lead car, it can even make the lead car more efficient.
Spoilers on cars (not ricer 6 foot high plywood ones, but the little lip molded into the trunk lid) improve fuel efficiency by breaking up the vacuum behind the car with turbulence. The alternative is the vacuum tries to suck the car backwards. If another car is 2 feet behind you, powering itself into your vacuum, then the compression of air in front of it will balance the vacuum behind yours, and completely eliminate this drag. Then you'll only have to work against the compression at the front of the lead car, and the vacuum behind the last one.
Certainly the middle cars benefit the most in improved fuel efficiency, and the front car the least, (the rear one is in between these for improvement) but everybody in the line should see improved efficiency to some degree.
You're completely ignoring the big fact that the Open Source Radeon driver also runs at 100% of its own speed. In fact, I'm willing to bet good money that ANY driver can run at 100% of its own speed.
Nope. It's a proven fact that adding a HOSTS file will improve the speed of any driver to the point that it runs at 150% of the speed of itself. The fact that this will cause a rip in the space/time continuum, making the universe implode is irrelevant, because the HOSTS file also creates 100% security from thin air, so the driver will continue to exist in perpetuity.
HOSTS files FTW! Is there anything they can't do?!
Well, let's see, your first "proof" link, leads to:
"The page you were looking for could not be found"
Guess neowin didn't think it was important enough to keep around, huh?
And the second leads to a thread that starts out with a section on "securing telnet" that was posted in 2008.
Really? You're trying to secure telnet 3 years ago? Anybody with a lick of sense hasn't been using telnet at all in any environment with secure requirements for well over a decade, and 3 years ago you're giving advice on how to secure this decade-broken, unsecurable protocol?
ULTIMATE FAIL
There's really, absolutely nothing else that needs to be said. You are a complete and total loser when it comes to security. You know nothing. You understand nothing. You are incapable of doing anything technical with any competence whatsoever.
Not only that, but you bitched about my "1 hit wonder" cd (while knowing nothing at all about it) that "must have used other people's software", as if you wrote everything you've ever done from scratch, including all libraries, and probably your own compiler, FFS. The first section of this thread shows this information actually comes from " a Mr. Markuss Jansson on his point on TELNET service", and "He also has more on things like "EFS" (encrypting filesystem) ".
Not only are you a complete loser, you're a complete hypocrite, also.
(BTW, my CD will let a tech run the recovery console on a machine remotely, over the Internet, with no KVM over IP hardware. No technical knowledge is required by the end user. Network connections, encryption, etc, are all handled automatically. It will also allow remote repair of corrupt filesystems that prevent the computer from booting with an UNMOUNTABLE_BOOT_VOLUME error. It can also do remote investigation on a computer, with forensically sound methods, transferring a hard drive image over the network from a remote PC for local analysis, if required. It can also do a pile of other things, most of which are probably beyond your comprehension. Even if it was the only thing I'd ever done, which it's not, it's so versatile, it could never be called "1 hit".)
The version of your guide that I read was the first link on your Bing search that you're ever so proud of. You know, this one?
This was posted in 2007, so it's not like it's really old, or anything.
In it, you recommend to run the Remote Registry, and telnet (which I didn't notice the first time) as the LocalService Account, rather than LocalSystem. You do not recommend to turn them off, as you claim in your post I'm replying to. These services require, for their only functionality, to have network access. Running them as LocalService therefore kills their entire useful functionality, while still leaving the service running, taking resources, slowing the system down, and potentially offering local exploits.
Why do you *THINK* I put "remote registry" running as a LocalService for? It can still function that way,
But that's the whole point. It can't function that way. Its function requires network access, which running as LocalService denies. It will not work for it's intended function. Same with telnet. Both services cannot function that way, at all.
but if it were to be activated again by some interloper malware, it'd be SAFE(r) because it was set as "LocalService" logon entity - "get it"?):
Ok..so let's assume for now that you completely messed up your security guide, and you actually meant to have people turn this service off, whi
(Have YOU done a better guide for layered security than that?)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! HOHOHOHEHEHLAOLOLOROFL!!
Wow...let me wipe the tears from my eyes here.....hang on....
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Wow....thanks for the laugh! I'll be chuckling for weeks over that one....
I just read part of your "highly rated security guide" and it's pure comedy gold. Most of it can't be used by anybody who actually uses a computer in a normal way, but aside from that, I then got to the section about running services as LocalService, rather than LocalSystem.
Let me ask you a question: What's the total antecedent to good security?
Any ideas?
I'll tell you: Having programs or services running that are not necessary, have no function, and are not used. Every one is a potential security hole waiting to happen.
Anyway, in this section, you say you've personally tested all these services, and know they run fine under the different account. One you list for running under LocalService is the Remote Registry service. I can guarantee you that this service does not run properly under LocalService. Sure, it will run, but its entire functionality is nullified, because the whole point of the service is to provide remote access to the registry in domain/remote admin situations, and the LocalService account has no network privileges. So you've got a service running where the entire point of that service is killed by your stupid security permissions, but it's still running, providing the possibility of local exploits, and also taking up resources. So the way you're recommending to set up this particular service, the service provides zero benefit, and significant drawbacks. Yeah...great security advice, there, buddy.
Can you say "STUPID"? I quit reading after such an obvious and fundamental security failure. See, in order to properly secure technology, you have to actually understand what that technology is doing, and how it works. You fail at understanding, so you fail at security.
This service is recommended to be turned off in any security advice I've ever given, except in a domain environment. Maybe you need to go back to school.
FAIL #1
1.) "Hauls in" other malware for the BOTNET portion running in Ring 2/RPL 2/Usermode? ------- 3.) Then, you "mop up" using ProcessExplorer once the rootkit's dead, to kill in the malware it hauls in, THAT RUNS THE BOTNET PORTION in Ring 3/RPL 3/UserMode!
Make up your mind. Is Ring 2 usermode? Or is Ring 3 usermode? You seem to be getting flustered and confused with all the frantic backpedalling you're doing.
"There are thousands of malware domains registered daily, and according to a post of yours on another thread" - by cbiltcliffe (186293) on Wednesday July 13, @10:23PM (#36757884) Homepage
WTF? I never said that # are out there daily... your link doesn't show it either... that's quite old also - what are you doing??
Stalking me via diff. usernames???
Of course not. You're not worth the effort, as you're an ineffectual, intellectually deficient waste of skin.
I simply did a search for "apk troll" on google, to see how long you'd been pulling this BS. It was both enlightening, and hilarious. Seems you can't get into a conversation at all without pissing off just about everybody around you. Maybe that should tell you something.
Now, back to what you quoted me saying: You've got a parsing error there. Reread it. I didn't say that you said there were thousands of malware domains registered daily. I'm telling you that there are thousands of malware domains registered daily. You obviously didn't know this, because it seems to have caught you completely by surprise. You said that it takes 30 seconds to add a new domain to your hosts file. That means, as I said, if you wanted to even remotely keep up, you'd have to be adding a new domain to your hos
What is it about "I use Process Explorer and Recovery Console for dealing with rootkits and botnets" that you can't understand means "I use Process Explorer and Recovery Console for dealing with rootkits and botnets"?
Admit it. You're wrong. You lost. Badly. Your statement that I quoted (which was not stated to be only for Ring3 malware at all, until well after you'd been called on it, and started backpedalling like an ass-covering politician) is as clear as day.
Go back to updating your host file, little boy. There are thousands of malware domains registered daily, and according to a post of yours on another thread, it takes you 30 seconds to add one to your hosts file. Since you're so fond of links back to those posts, even though you apparently cannot understand the very words you wrote, here's the link:
Well, even 1000 hosts per day is over 20 per minute. You'd better get updating that hosts file, because even if you work on it 24 hours a day, you've got less than 3 seconds per host to get it into your file. If you want to do 2000 per day, you only get 1.4 seconds per host. Get typing!! And that doesn't even take into account the ones that you have to verify are there, just to make sure you're protected from them.
Maybe you don't get malware because, between the ungodly amount of time you must spend updating that hosts file, and the amount of time you spend trolling and stalking on/., you don't have time to do anything else that could get you infected.
Just out of curiosity, how do you have time to do all that high end programming you claim to do, since hosts file editing and/. trolling is obviously taking up all your time? Or is that why the list of previous accomplishments you're so fond of posting basically ends at 2003? Is that when you had the aneurysm that turned you into the psychotic raving lunatic you are today?
P.S. => That last bit isn't an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem is attempting to invalidate the message due to some unrelated characteristic of the messenger. Your message (at least the part of it I was concerned with, as well as your irrational support of maintaining a hosts file which is provably unworkable) has already been completely invalidated due to being factually incorrect. That makes that last bit, rather than an ad hominem, just a plain old insult.
P.P.S => One more question: when you get all worked up, typing furiously into a/. post box, putting in your irrational formatting, and all the nonsensical b.s. that you do, do you actually start foaming at the mouth? Maybe you should get that looked at.
This is the quote I originally responded to, which I then didn't find. In this post, you state:
Besides, there isn't a botnet (or even ROOTKIT) I can't deal with effectively for removal anyhow - & I don't use the same tools others do...
Well, @ first I do, & when those fail? Out come the "big guns" in Process Explorer & Recovery Console - & there's nothing I can't "dust" between them...
Yes, you do explicitly state that Process Explorer is a "big gun" for dealing with botnets (or even ROOTKITS).
Fact is - I never even IMPLIED they are for "rootkit detection" or removal from Ring 0/RPL0/kernel mode operations of rootkits... only usermode/RPL3/Ring 3 malware operations, period!
You didn't start blathering on about Ring0 vs Ring3 until after I already had you on the defensive and reeling from a couple of well-placed hits. Your first mention of either term was in this post:
See, the problem is, you've got such delusions of grandeur, that you can't entertain the possibility that you might actually be wrong. Even when it's a certainty.
That's not the TCPview/Process Explorer quote that I referred to. Sure, you said it there, but the one I responded to first, you didn't. You stated "malware" which implies all malware, in a conversation about rootkits. To a sane individual, that also implies rootkits. Obviously you are not sane, since it didn't imply that to you. However, now you'll claim that I'm ad hominem attacking you, because it's a word you know how to spell.
(others posting here do as well, which I think is hilariously funny too)
The WinPCap driver gets installed using legitimate means. Of course it's going to give you the warning. What the hell has that got to do with rootkits?
As I stated, there have been plenty of reports of flaws with WFP and code signing, which I'm not going to point out to you, since you're obviously too lazy or braindead to find yourself.
Whether you want to admit it or not, my statements regarding you implying TCPview could show connections from rootkits are true. You did imply it. You injected the comment directly into a conversation about rootkits, and you in no way stated that you were only talking about malware other than rootkits. You either knowingly and disingenuously completely changed the subject, knowing it would be misinterpreted, or you meant it as I took it, and are now trying to backtrack.
In the first case, you're a childish ass. In the second, you're a wannabe noob.
I didn't agree that your method of removing rootkits would work. I stated that it would work for certain types of rootkits, but not all. You conveniently left off the part of my quote about the type it wouldn't work on, so you could pretend that I completely agreed with you. I didn't, and you know it.
And are you trying to tell me that some AC just happened to be reading this thread from a story over 2 weeks old, and just decided randomly to agree with you? Bull.
And for your information, I don't have a post limit. Or at least, I've never run across it, as my karma is excellent. The only person on here who can't seem to wrap their head around the fact that I'm right is you.
Anecdotal evidence, ad hominem attacks...all these words you are throwing around, and you don't even understand basic logic.
You say drivers cannot be patched without warnings. Well, it's a logical impossibility to prove a negative, because one weird edge case can throw your whole argument out the window. There is no anecdotal evidence when you're proving a negative theory incorrect. A single data point completely invalidates the theory.
The question I have is, why do I need to provide you with proof when such flaws have been widely publicized regarding both Windows Vista and Windows 7. Do your own Googling.
Debating with someone who has such a tenuous grasp on reality is fruitless, as the most logical arguments will be completely ignored, some irrelevant BS thrown back, along with "IT's just too TOO eZ, 2EzZzZzzz121!!1111!11!!1111!!1eleevenety"
The only reason you think it was too easy, is because you're too simple to understand the argument. You don't even realize you've completely failed to counter anything at all.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, I know the lead car will take a huge hit in miles/km per gallon/liter but still, you see where I'm going.
Actually, it won't. Unless the rear cars shut off their engines and physically connect up to the lead car, it can even make the lead car more efficient.
Spoilers on cars (not ricer 6 foot high plywood ones, but the little lip molded into the trunk lid) improve fuel efficiency by breaking up the vacuum behind the car with turbulence. The alternative is the vacuum tries to suck the car backwards.
If another car is 2 feet behind you, powering itself into your vacuum, then the compression of air in front of it will balance the vacuum behind yours, and completely eliminate this drag. Then you'll only have to work against the compression at the front of the lead car, and the vacuum behind the last one.
Certainly the middle cars benefit the most in improved fuel efficiency, and the front car the least, (the rear one is in between these for improvement) but everybody in the line should see improved efficiency to some degree.
but you're still the one operating the car and presumably won't follow instructions to drive into another car.
You have a lot more faith in drivers than I have...
http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/29/swiss-van-driver-gets-stuck-up-a-glorified-goat-track-blames/
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20101006/gps-swamp-101006/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2011/03/03/nb-gps-driver-speaks.html
http://www.switched.com/2009/02/27/gps-Lihttp://www.switched.com/2009/02/27/gps-leads-truck-to-impassable-road-for-5-days/?icid=200100397x1219177496x1201334806
Make sure you install a HOSTS file, then the police won't ever be able to install malware in your car!!!
You seem to be using English words, but what your saying bears no resemblance to reality.
AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Loser!!!
Careful guys...
It might have rabies!!!
You got your ass handed to you on a platter, and you know it. ....*
Actually, no...you don't know it. That's the sad part.
At least, sad for you.
The rest of us find it hilarious.
Tell me....how often do you need to wipe your keyboard and monitor clean when you're furiously typing one of these nonsensical posts?
Look at the loser with zero logic skills! hahahaha
Wow! Watch the spittle fly!!!
Careful, you may invoke APK
You mean foaming saliva boy? That's kinda the point. :)
Well, obviously Manning should have had a HOSTS file installed, as that would have prevented any security breach whatsoever!!
hehehelol
You're completely ignoring the big fact that the Open Source Radeon driver also runs at 100% of its own speed. In fact, I'm willing to bet good money that ANY driver can run at 100% of its own speed.
Nope. It's a proven fact that adding a HOSTS file will improve the speed of any driver to the point that it runs at 150% of the speed of itself. The fact that this will cause a rip in the space/time continuum, making the universe implode is irrelevant, because the HOSTS file also creates 100% security from thin air, so the driver will continue to exist in perpetuity.
HOSTS files FTW! Is there anything they can't do?!
Yes, or they could remotely patch the firmware. Which they've done.
No, no, no...all you need to do is add a HOSTS file, and everything will be 100% secure until the end of the universe!!
hehehe.
Did you check your links?
Well, let's see, your first "proof" link, leads to:
"The page you were looking for could not be found"
Guess neowin didn't think it was important enough to keep around, huh?
And the second leads to a thread that starts out with a section on "securing telnet" that was posted in 2008.
Really? You're trying to secure telnet 3 years ago? Anybody with a lick of sense hasn't been using telnet at all in any environment with secure requirements for well over a decade, and 3 years ago you're giving advice on how to secure this decade-broken, unsecurable protocol?
ULTIMATE FAIL
There's really, absolutely nothing else that needs to be said. You are a complete and total loser when it comes to security. You know nothing. You understand nothing. You are incapable of doing anything technical with any competence whatsoever.
Not only that, but you bitched about my "1 hit wonder" cd (while knowing nothing at all about it) that "must have used other people's software", as if you wrote everything you've ever done from scratch, including all libraries, and probably your own compiler, FFS.
The first section of this thread shows this information actually comes from " a Mr. Markuss Jansson on his point on TELNET service", and "He also has more on things like "EFS" (encrypting filesystem) ".
Not only are you a complete loser, you're a complete hypocrite, also.
(BTW, my CD will let a tech run the recovery console on a machine remotely, over the Internet, with no KVM over IP hardware. No technical knowledge is required by the end user. Network connections, encryption, etc, are all handled automatically. It will also allow remote repair of corrupt filesystems that prevent the computer from booting with an UNMOUNTABLE_BOOT_VOLUME error. It can also do remote investigation on a computer, with forensically sound methods, transferring a hard drive image over the network from a remote PC for local analysis, if required. It can also do a pile of other things, most of which are probably beyond your comprehension. Even if it was the only thing I'd ever done, which it's not, it's so versatile, it could never be called "1 hit".)
The version of your guide that I read was the first link on your Bing search that you're ever so proud of. You know, this one?
http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE
This is the one I read:
http://forums.pcpitstop.com/index.php?showtopic=150310
This was posted in 2007, so it's not like it's really old, or anything.
In it, you recommend to run the Remote Registry, and telnet (which I didn't notice the first time) as the LocalService Account, rather than LocalSystem. You do not recommend to turn them off, as you claim in your post I'm replying to.
These services require, for their only functionality, to have network access. Running them as LocalService therefore kills their entire useful functionality, while still leaving the service running, taking resources, slowing the system down, and potentially offering local exploits.
Why do you *THINK* I put "remote registry" running as a LocalService for? It can still function that way,
But that's the whole point. It can't function that way. Its function requires network access, which running as LocalService denies. It will not work for it's intended function. Same with telnet. Both services cannot function that way, at all.
but if it were to be activated again by some interloper malware, it'd be SAFE(r) because it was set as "LocalService" logon entity - "get it"?):
Ok..so let's assume for now that you completely messed up your security guide, and you actually meant to have people turn this service off, whi
(Have YOU done a better guide for layered security than that?)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! HOHOHOHEHEHLAOLOLOROFL!!
Wow...let me wipe the tears from my eyes here.....hang on....
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Wow....thanks for the laugh! I'll be chuckling for weeks over that one....
I just read part of your "highly rated security guide" and it's pure comedy gold. Most of it can't be used by anybody who actually uses a computer in a normal way, but aside from that, I then got to the section about running services as LocalService, rather than LocalSystem.
Let me ask you a question: What's the total antecedent to good security?
Any ideas?
I'll tell you: Having programs or services running that are not necessary, have no function, and are not used. Every one is a potential security hole waiting to happen.
Anyway, in this section, you say you've personally tested all these services, and know they run fine under the different account.
One you list for running under LocalService is the Remote Registry service. I can guarantee you that this service does not run properly under LocalService. Sure, it will run, but its entire functionality is nullified, because the whole point of the service is to provide remote access to the registry in domain/remote admin situations, and the LocalService account has no network privileges. So you've got a service running where the entire point of that service is killed by your stupid security permissions, but it's still running, providing the possibility of local exploits, and also taking up resources. So the way you're recommending to set up this particular service, the service provides zero benefit, and significant drawbacks. Yeah...great security advice, there, buddy.
Can you say "STUPID"? I quit reading after such an obvious and fundamental security failure. See, in order to properly secure technology, you have to actually understand what that technology is doing, and how it works. You fail at understanding, so you fail at security.
This service is recommended to be turned off in any security advice I've ever given, except in a domain environment. Maybe you need to go back to school.
FAIL #1
1.) "Hauls in" other malware for the BOTNET portion running in Ring 2/RPL 2/Usermode?
-------
3.) Then, you "mop up" using ProcessExplorer once the rootkit's dead, to kill in the malware it hauls in, THAT RUNS THE BOTNET PORTION in Ring 3/RPL 3/UserMode!
Make up your mind. Is Ring 2 usermode? Or is Ring 3 usermode? You seem to be getting flustered and confused with all the frantic backpedalling you're doing.
"There are thousands of malware domains registered daily, and according to a post of yours on another thread" - by cbiltcliffe (186293) on Wednesday July 13, @10:23PM (#36757884) Homepage
WTF? I never said that # are out there daily... your link doesn't show it either... that's quite old also - what are you doing??
Stalking me via diff. usernames???
Of course not. You're not worth the effort, as you're an ineffectual, intellectually deficient waste of skin.
I simply did a search for "apk troll" on google, to see how long you'd been pulling this BS. It was both enlightening, and hilarious. Seems you can't get into a conversation at all without pissing off just about everybody around you. Maybe that should tell you something.
Now, back to what you quoted me saying:
You've got a parsing error there. Reread it. I didn't say that you said there were thousands of malware domains registered daily. I'm telling you that there are thousands of malware domains registered daily. You obviously didn't know this, because it seems to have caught you completely by surprise. You said that it takes 30 seconds to add a new domain to your hosts file. That means, as I said, if you wanted to even remotely keep up, you'd have to be adding a new domain to your hos
What is it about "I use Process Explorer and Recovery Console for dealing with rootkits and botnets" that you can't understand means "I use Process Explorer and Recovery Console for dealing with rootkits and botnets"?
Admit it. You're wrong. You lost. Badly. Your statement that I quoted (which was not stated to be only for Ring3 malware at all, until well after you'd been called on it, and started backpedalling like an ass-covering politician) is as clear as day.
Go back to updating your host file, little boy. There are thousands of malware domains registered daily, and according to a post of yours on another thread, it takes you 30 seconds to add one to your hosts file. Since you're so fond of links back to those posts, even though you apparently cannot understand the very words you wrote, here's the link:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1932290&cid=34743648
Well, even 1000 hosts per day is over 20 per minute. You'd better get updating that hosts file, because even if you work on it 24 hours a day, you've got less than 3 seconds per host to get it into your file. If you want to do 2000 per day, you only get 1.4 seconds per host. Get typing!!
And that doesn't even take into account the ones that you have to verify are there, just to make sure you're protected from them.
Maybe you don't get malware because, between the ungodly amount of time you must spend updating that hosts file, and the amount of time you spend trolling and stalking on /., you don't have time to do anything else that could get you infected.
Just out of curiosity, how do you have time to do all that high end programming you claim to do, since hosts file editing and /. trolling is obviously taking up all your time? Or is that why the list of previous accomplishments you're so fond of posting basically ends at 2003? Is that when you had the aneurysm that turned you into the psychotic raving lunatic you are today?
P.S. => That last bit isn't an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem is attempting to invalidate the message due to some unrelated characteristic of the messenger. Your message (at least the part of it I was concerned with, as well as your irrational support of maintaining a hosts file which is provably unworkable) has already been completely invalidated due to being factually incorrect. That makes that last bit, rather than an ad hominem, just a plain old insult.
P.P.S => One more question: when you get all worked up, typing furiously into a /. post box, putting in your irrational formatting, and all the nonsensical b.s. that you do, do you actually start foaming at the mouth? Maybe you should get that looked at.
/code fucked up the first URL in my last post.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2282088&cid=36618008
The rest of my comment stands.
Can you show me EXPLICITY stating that ProcessExplorer &/or TcpView are for "detecting rootkits" as you said I did? No, you cannot... period!
Please - DO PROVE OTHERWISE WITH A QUOTE OF MY OWN WORDS IN THIS EXCHANGE & THE SOURCE LINK FOR IT!
(You haven't managed that yet, because you cannot to do it!)
Ok, fine. Since your memory is so short, and you can't seem to remember what you've said, here:
ahref=http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2282088&cid=36618008rel=url2html-5260http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2282088&cid=36618008>
This is the quote I originally responded to, which I then didn't find. In this post, you state:
Besides, there isn't a botnet (or even ROOTKIT) I can't deal with effectively for removal anyhow - & I don't use the same tools others do...
Well, @ first I do, & when those fail? Out come the "big guns" in Process Explorer & Recovery Console - & there's nothing I can't "dust" between them...
Yes, you do explicitly state that Process Explorer is a "big gun" for dealing with botnets (or even ROOTKITS).
Let's see...I believe the words are:
Reading comprehensions.....hahaha.....lol...2ez....U FAIL!!
Fact is - I never even IMPLIED they are for "rootkit detection" or removal from Ring 0/RPL0/kernel mode operations of rootkits... only usermode/RPL3/Ring 3 malware operations, period!
You didn't start blathering on about Ring0 vs Ring3 until after I already had you on the defensive and reeling from a couple of well-placed hits. Your first mention of either term was in this post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2282088&cid=36731660
and that was well after I'd already called you on your statement that I just proved you made, that Process Explorer was useful for removing rootkits.
So now, not only are you putting words in other's mouths, you're also attempting to retroactively put them into your own.
Reading comprehensions.....hahaha.....lol...2ez....U FAIL #2!!
See, the problem is, you've got such delusions of grandeur, that you can't entertain the possibility that you might actually be wrong. Even when it's a certainty.
That's not the TCPview/Process Explorer quote that I referred to. Sure, you said it there, but the one I responded to first, you didn't. You stated "malware" which implies all malware, in a conversation about rootkits. To a sane individual, that also implies rootkits. Obviously you are not sane, since it didn't imply that to you. However, now you'll claim that I'm ad hominem attacking you, because it's a word you know how to spell.
(others posting here do as well, which I think is hilariously funny too)
No....you know what's really funny? I mean, really, really, really funny?
All this time I've kept you spastically OCDing over this thread, when you could have been updating your hosts file.
Now THAT'S FUNNY!!!!
Hey, APK. Good to see you astroturfing again...
The WinPCap driver gets installed using legitimate means. Of course it's going to give you the warning. What the hell has that got to do with rootkits?
As I stated, there have been plenty of reports of flaws with WFP and code signing, which I'm not going to point out to you, since you're obviously too lazy or braindead to find yourself.
Whether you want to admit it or not, my statements regarding you implying TCPview could show connections from rootkits are true. You did imply it. You injected the comment directly into a conversation about rootkits, and you in no way stated that you were only talking about malware other than rootkits. You either knowingly and disingenuously completely changed the subject, knowing it would be misinterpreted, or you meant it as I took it, and are now trying to backtrack.
In the first case, you're a childish ass. In the second, you're a wannabe noob.
Stop putting words in my mouth, hypocrite.
I didn't agree that your method of removing rootkits would work. I stated that it would work for certain types of rootkits, but not all. You conveniently left off the part of my quote about the type it wouldn't work on, so you could pretend that I completely agreed with you. I didn't, and you know it.
And are you trying to tell me that some AC just happened to be reading this thread from a story over 2 weeks old, and just decided randomly to agree with you? Bull.
And for your information, I don't have a post limit. Or at least, I've never run across it, as my karma is excellent. The only person on here who can't seem to wrap their head around the fact that I'm right is you.
Anecdotal evidence, ad hominem attacks...all these words you are throwing around, and you don't even understand basic logic.
You say drivers cannot be patched without warnings. Well, it's a logical impossibility to prove a negative, because one weird edge case can throw your whole argument out the window.
There is no anecdotal evidence when you're proving a negative theory incorrect. A single data point completely invalidates the theory.
The question I have is, why do I need to provide you with proof when such flaws have been widely publicized regarding both Windows Vista and Windows 7. Do your own Googling.
Debating with someone who has such a tenuous grasp on reality is fruitless, as the most logical arguments will be completely ignored, some irrelevant BS thrown back, along with "IT's just too TOO eZ, 2EzZzZzzz121!!1111!11!!1111!!1eleevenety"
The only reason you think it was too easy, is because you're too simple to understand the argument. You don't even realize you've completely failed to counter anything at all.
cover your rambling, incoherent thoughts.
so many replies to
don't have to put