Re: Internet Speed

dennis@home wrote:

>
>
> "Christopher Hunter" <> wrote in
> message news:%tO3j.12641$ k...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>> The same also applies to Linux users of course as they can't get an
>>> infection so its safe to install anything.
>>
>> Do you know /all/ about security? No. I thought not. We're all still
>> waiting to see how you can fake a file with the same MD5 as the real
>> original.
>
> I'm still waiting for you to prove it can't be done.

It simply does not workj that way.
*You* claim it can be done, all the evidence to the contrary ignored by you
It is *your* part to explain *how* it can be done. Just making some wild,
competely idiotic speculations which totally disregard reality is
not "proof"

> There are known flaws in md5 and you don't know what they are.

Yes. The known "flaw" is the "collision attack".
Which can *not be used to generated a file with the same MD5 as the real one

> You cannot tell me it can't be done as you have no way to know.
> Are you really stupid or are you just going to claim its secure again?

Well, you incredibly stupid cretin (is it really necessary to run Vista to
be as stupid as you are, or were you simply born without any brain?), come
on then, show us *how* it can be done.

>>> The difference being that the windows infection will be caught when the
>>> AV
>>> is updated
>>
>> Don't be silly. Many of the most recent Windows infections have new
>> versions released /every/ /hour/ and many of them use fairly clever
>> methods
>> to cripple the already flawed "anti-virus" snake-oil. There are *NO*
>> "Windows security" programmes that work - or /can/ work.
>
> Just as there are none for Linux.

Because AV for linux is not needed, you moron. There are *no* linux viruses
in the wild. None, not a single one
What AV do you propose for non-existing viruses, you cretinous Vista user?

> If you can't see that then you are not very knowledgeable.

Being "not very knowledgeable" makes anybody highly intelligent compared to
you

< snip more dennis "I am a typical Vista user" lunacy >
--
Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous
And web browsing. And viewing pictures. And...

"PeterKöhlmann" <> wrote in message
news:fiovna$6qu$00$...
> dennis@home wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Christopher Hunter" <> wrote in
>> message news:%tO3j.12641$ k...
>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>> The same also applies to Linux users of course as they can't get an
>>>> infection so its safe to install anything.
>>>
>>> Do you know /all/ about security? No. I thought not. We're all still
>>> waiting to see how you can fake a file with the same MD5 as the real
>>> original.
>>
>> I'm still waiting for you to prove it can't be done.
>
> It simply does not workj that way.
> *You* claim it can be done, all the evidence to the contrary ignored by
> you
> It is *your* part to explain *how* it can be done. Just making some wild,
> competely idiotic speculations which totally disregard reality is
> not "proof"

I said md5 isn't safe.
You don't know what the flaw is so you don't know it is safe.
They said WEP was safe until someone found a flaw and cracked it.

>> There are known flaws in md5 and you don't know what they are.
>
> Yes. The known "flaw" is the "collision attack".
> Which can *not be used to generated a file with the same MD5 as the real
> one

Rubbish.
You would have to check the md5 sum on the file couldn't generate a
collision with another file before you could say that.
You can't do that so you can't claim it to be true.
The article I posted showed several small files that were collisions
including one where they deliberately kept the first half the same and
changed the second half till they got a collision. Don't forget that bigger
files like isos are more likely to have collisions that may be exploitable.
It is only a matter of time before someone either gets enough CPU (botnets
anyone) or a better method of doing the attack is found.

>
>> You cannot tell me it can't be done as you have no way to know.
>> Are you really stupid or are you just going to claim its secure again?
>
> Well, you incredibly stupid cretin (is it really necessary to run Vista
> to
> be as stupid as you are, or were you simply born without any brain?), come
> on then, show us *how* it can be done.

Its you that can't grasp something as simple as a security protocol with a
known flaw is not secure.

>
>>>> The difference being that the windows infection will be caught when the
>>>> AV
>>>> is updated
>>>
>>> Don't be silly. Many of the most recent Windows infections have new
>>> versions released /every/ /hour/ and many of them use fairly clever
>>> methods
>>> to cripple the already flawed "anti-virus" snake-oil. There are *NO*
>>> "Windows security" programmes that work - or /can/ work.
>>
>> Just as there are none for Linux.
>
> Because AV for linux is not needed, you moron. There are *no* linux
> viruses
> in the wild. None, not a single one
> What AV do you propose for non-existing viruses, you cretinous Vista user?

Well there is always clam.
I wonder why someone wrote AV if it wasn't needed.
I suppose its the same people that write more windows managers.

>> If you can't see that then you are not very knowledgeable.
>
> Being "not very knowledgeable" makes anybody highly intelligent compared
> to
> you
>
> < snip more dennis "I am a typical Vista user" lunacy >

Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> dennis@home wrote:
...snip... There are *NO*

> Because AV for linux is not needed, you moron. There are *no* linux viruses
> in the wild. None, not a single one.

Actually, I'd check that attitude if I were you. You may run Linux, you
may even run Ubuntu, but there are still gaps and holes. Do you employ
Java on any of your machines? How about Flash? Do you run any Windoze
programs under Wine? If you do, or, if you employ ANY cross-platform
applications, then, Linux or no Linux, you're open and liable to attack.

> What AV do you propose for non-existing viruses, you cretinous Vista user?

Avast! for Linux. I've used it for months. It scans both Linux and
Windoze disks on the same run, from the linux side of an Ubuntu/XP
dual-boot laptop, and does show and cure problems on both sides.

Cheers;

Ed

Here is a list of linux viruses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mputer_viruses

-John Chapman

"Night0wl" <> wrote in message
news:4750eab6$0$15407$...
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> dennis@home wrote:
....snip... There are *NO*

> Because AV for linux is not needed, you moron. There are *no* linux
> viruses
> in the wild. None, not a single one.

Actually, I'd check that attitude if I were you. You may run Linux, you
may even run Ubuntu, but there are still gaps and holes. Do you employ
Java on any of your machines? How about Flash? Do you run any Windoze
programs under Wine? If you do, or, if you employ ANY cross-platform
applications, then, Linux or no Linux, you're open and liable to attack.

> What AV do you propose for non-existing viruses, you cretinous Vista user?

Avast! for Linux. I've used it for months. It scans both Linux and
Windoze disks on the same run, from the linux side of an Ubuntu/XP
dual-boot laptop, and does show and cure problems on both sides.

Cheers;

Ed