Re: My Windows XP system is 100% secure - nobody can get in

From: Deeter (this@isnotit.com)
Date: 02/22/03


From: Deeter <this@isnotit.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 23:46:05 GMT

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 07:33:45 -0800, Don Jenkins
<bigwheeze@hotmail.net> wrote:

>Dave Thornburgh wrote:
>
>> "Don Jenkins" <bigwheeze@hotmail.net> wrote in message
>> news:3E552CDA.1010300@hotmail.net...
>>
>>
>>>I think I came to the wrong newsgroup. No one here seems to have a
>>>clue. Oh well, it is an "alt" newsgroup, what did I expect.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So far, I'd agree with that statement - you came to the wrong newsgroup.
>> This newsgroup is about computer security. So far, you've not said one
>> thing to support the notion that you know squat about security - your posts
>> have been just as vague and ethereal on that point as you've accused
>> everyone else of being.
>>
>> You're clamoring for specifics about how you're vulnerable.
>
>
>Not clamoring for anything. I just haven't accepted the bullshit
>statements from frauds who pretend to be experts.
>
>In the rest of your post you said you were going to give specifics,
>then you proceeded to give generalities. You did not give even one
>specific. You are a bullshitter. Any idiot can quote generalities
>about computer security.
>
>Stay out of this thread if you either have no desire or are not
>qualified to intelligently participate.
>
> Well, you've
>> pretty much told us that you're running a stock bundle straight off the
>> store shelves, and that you implicitly trust anything from Microsoft,
>> Charter, and Netscape. Not once have you ever said that you've applied the
>> patches recommended by those vendors, or even hinted that you might know
>> those patches exist.
>>
>> So, for specific examples of ways in which you are vulnerable:
>
>
>Ok!
>
>> # You always run as a user with admin rights. This is a big one, since just
>> about any of the other vulnerabilities are made much more dangerous - at
>> least, the ones that take advantage of the rights of the logged on user.
>
>
>Not specific. You made a general statement that is not true in my case.
> You're saying my system is not secure because I run as admin, yet you
>cannot say specifically how it is not secure. You're a fraud (and your
>statement is false).
>
>>
>> # You could have a weak password controlling access to otherwise unprotected
>> shared resources - you've never mentioned if you shut down the sharing
>> mechanisms.
>
>
>"could", a generality that any mindless person could make.
>
>
>> # There are several vulnerabilities on the SANS/FBI top 20 list that fall
>> into the category of, "if you haven't locked this down, you ARE vulnerable
>> (not 'might be')". Check http://www.sans.org/top20 for details.
>
>
>not specific, parroting generalities like a mindless idiot.
>
>> # Multiple security holes have been found in Netscape. Have you fixed them?
>> See http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2002-07.html,
>> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=157989,
>> http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/vendor/2002-q3/0027.html
>
>
>not specific, mindless idiot.
>
>> # It's flat out ludicrous to blindly trust that Microsoft (or any other)
>> software is secure. See: http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/951555,
>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/591890, etc.
>
>
>mindless parroting of a generality
>
>> And, the most telling point about your knowledge level: NOT ONE of these
>> vulnerabilities
>
>
>what vulnerabilities. you haven't said anything.
>
> requires the installation of any third-party hardware or
>> software to be safe. Nobody here has hammered you on needing to install AV
>> stuff, a firewall, a NAT router, or any of the other available aids - but
>> you keep accusing people of doing just that.
>
>
>Yes, based on having gone back and read the newsgroup. See yesterday's
>post by "Deeter" making the mindless statements about AV and firewalls
>being a must for everyone. That has been typical, not just in
>this newsgroup, but by naive Sys Admins in general.
>

If you are going to say that I said something at least get it right

I indeed said that anti-virus is a must, I doubt that anyone in this
group besides yourself would disagree with me there, I never said that
firewalls are a must, I said that using a firewall is recommended, and
I stand by this conviction, especially for mindless users such as
yourself.

You seem to have an auto-respond feature built in that replies to all
beliefs contrary to your own as bullshit. You discount information
that has been given to you as "generalizations" when computer security
is based on generalizations. You have to look at what attacks have
been used in the past, and generalize from those to protect yourself
in the future. Most new attacks are not completely original, they are
variants of older exploits. How do you protect against a
vulnerability that is unkown? You generalize.

You also seem to forget that you are in a security newsgroup here, the
purpose is not to feed you with a list of exploits, but to tell you
how to protect yourself, you have been given numerous links to sites
with information on securing your computer, and call them bullshit.

My conclusion from reading this post is that you are either a wannabe
skiddie that is trying to find exploits without doing any research on
the topic (perhaps google is too complicated), or you are a mindless
troll.

With that I am removing myself from this thread, it isn't even worth
the time to read the posts from this mindless idiot.

_______________________________________________________________________
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with sense, reason, and intellect has inteded us to forego their use."
              --- Galileo Galilei
_______________________________________________________________________
http://quiz.ravenblack.net/blood.pl?biter=Deiter



Relevant Pages

  • Re: My Windows XP system is 100% secure - nobody can get in
    ... I'd agree with that statement - you came to the wrong newsgroup. ... then you proceeded to give generalities. ... > about any of the other vulnerabilities are made much more dangerous - at ... parroting generalities like a mindless idiot. ...
    (alt.computer.security)
  • Re: My Windows XP system is 100% secure - nobody can get in
    ... Oh well, it is an "alt" newsgroup, what did I expect. ... This newsgroup is about computer security. ... about any of the other vulnerabilities are made much more dangerous - at ... vulnerabilities requires the installation of any third-party hardware or ...
    (alt.computer.security)
  • Re: Where to Save Data Files and Folders - thanks
    ... some of the same serious vulnerabilities of the first or primary HD. ... Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience ... Please Reply to the Newsgroup ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.general)
  • Re: Mindless thought of the day.....
    ... Yes it's mindless to think that RGp (or any newsgroup) has an ...
    (rec.games.pinball)
  • Re: We should close down alt.lang.asm.
    ... > I am fully in the opinion that the alt.lang.asm board should be shut ... The only thing that goes on here in mindless ... It's a big waste of server space, ... If this newsgroup really bothers you, ...
    (alt.lang.asm)