Re: Nominations (4) -> Re: Several ways you can delete a large avi file, and other files that might say they are in use.

From: Dustin Cook (bughunter.dustin_at_gmail.com)
Date: 11/16/05 

Date: 15 Nov 2005 17:49:29 -0800

John Henry wrote:

> I've asid this many times...not only do I know very little about them, I
> *care* very little about them. I don't do stupid *** and I keep my AV
> software running and updated. I've never one time been hit with a
> virus, and the chances that I ever will be are quite slim.

The people infected by my viruses often said they're av was uptodate.
And not all of them did anything stupid to get the virus. Like I said,
you don't know much about them. You should learn tho, it's an important
security concern these days.

The fact you haven't been hit, yet seems to give you a false sense of
security. Let me clue you in on something. An antivirus scanner is
retroactive, it can only hunt for what it already knows about.

> Some idiots, maybe. They were two different computers; one a self
> contained gray box with a monochrome monitor and a Z80, the other a
> color-capable console and a 6809. Just because a three morons with web
> pages say that a horse and a cow are the same thing doesn't make it a
> valid observation.

Tandy then by your logic would also be the idiots. They labeled it a
trs80 family computer.

> > Isn't it fun playing with different trs80's and then arguing about them
> > in public? I don't know much about your first box, and you don't know
> > much about mine. Aside from the fact that the manufacturer only seemed
> > to confuse things when they labeled both as Trs80s.
>
> The original color computer was labeled as a TRS-80 only in it's first,
> short, initial manufacturing run, to capitalize on the value of the
> already existing TRS80 brand. The vast majority of them were labeled
> 'Tandy Color Computer.'

I know, I owned one. It said on the nice big white box, Tandy Trs80-
Color Computer 3.

> I'm not arguing about anything, I'm pointing and laughing and continuing
> to demonstrate why, even if you invent an OS tomorrow that has all of the
> versatility and ability to run already-existing software as Windows and
> all the stability and security of Linux, you'll still be a blithering
> fucking idiot who has absolutely no business giving anyone advice about
> computers.

You don't know anything about security, obviously if you think simply
keeping your AV uptodate and not doing anything "stupid" ensures you'll
never get one.

> It's a possibility that the Unknown Hand Of God Herself touched the CPU
> and instructed it to send a fake user-agent header, too, but the chances
> of it are so small that it's not worth considering, and even bringing it
> up would serve no purpose but to act as a cheap diversion from the fact
> that you can't answer the question, but still feel the need to run your
> mouth.

> But you see, I'm not interested in googling you. You're here, now, making
> an ass out of yourself...why would I want to do some obsessive
> stalkeriffic thing like googling up your years-old posts just to see
> what fuckin newsreader you were using?

The only individuals who seem to share your opinions are your friends
from AUK, the other computer/security related newgroups seem to
disagree with your analysis of me.

The only reason I suggested googling was because you brought up the
issue about me posting from google, as if this somehow implied I was
incapable of setting up a usenet client; Which is far from the truth.

It's never a good idea to goto battle without knowing your enemy, punk.

> So you're claiming to have read every message I've ever posted before you
> reply to me, including researching any of the nyms I may have used in the
> past? Did you manage to check BITNET and FIDONet, too? I ask because I'd
> really love to find a decent archive of the old pre-Internet FIDONet
> messages, like google.

I was also on fidonet, I still am. If you wish to access it, you can
via telnet to this old renegade bbs. ttb.slyip.com

Please, lets not try bsing anymore dude, I was a CoSysop on several
boards up north that had fidonet feeds. I haven't made an effort to
check past posts concerning you, what reason would I have to do so?
I've only attacked you for your clear lack of knowledge concerning file
handles, and malware. The only reason I suggested you should do so
regarding me, is because you seem to be trying to attack me as a stupid
user, because I'm posting from google. I used to post from dejanews as
well, should I be attacked for that too?
> > Once wrote a virus? that infected a couple dozen machines? You are a
> > bigger idiot then I assumed you were in the beginning. Stick to your
> > basic, punk, it's all you know.
>
> The one you claimed by name to have written has a total ITW penetration of
> less than 24 machines, per Symantec. Believe them, or believe some dork
> on a newsgroup?

You do understand don't you that these viruses are all several years
old, had no way to alter their code, and are dieing out? Hence the
updated information. But, since you brought it up and claimed it
infected less then 24 machines, heres some information when it was new:
:)
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CGC/is_34_25/ai_55777093

KM, I really liked this part here:
The virus, called HLL Toadie.7800, is reported to have infected the
Austrian office of a multinational firm over the weekend of Aug. 21.

That mutinational firm turned out to be IBM. So, for a virus 5 years
old, the fact its getting any computers at all isn't bad. Like I said,
theirs reasons some viruses make it a long time, and reasons some do
not.

> Then your instructions were for ***, obviously; I followed them to the
> letter and had no problem deleting the file.

> Of course, you ignore the fact that the problem you are describing only
> applies to files that are corrupt (or badly authored).

Divx/xvid files are not corrupt nor badly authored. I thought you did
work with video? Or just pictures is it?

> Temper, temper, kid. Screaming and cussing isn't going to make you look
> any less stupid, or make your proposed solution any less unweildy,
> esoteric, and ridiculously over-complicated for solving a problem that
> can be fixed with a simple patch.
>
> > http://www.techzonez.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-8442.html
> >
> > Now fucktard, be enlightened.
>
> At what, some dork who wants me to modify my registry to fix an error
> that, near as I can tell, seems to affect a very small number of users,
> one of whom is not me? I've got terabytes of AVI files that I've created
> over the years, and I've simply never had the problem you describe...and
> if I did, there are lot of things I'd try before I merged a regfile from
> some website to it.

A very small number of users? Do you have the foggiest fucking idea
what divx/xvid even is? Wait, don't answer that, we know you don't.

> Hey, you're the one bragging about running MSDos on a tandy color
> computer.

When did I say I ran msdos on a coco3?

> But you're assuming that the root of the problem is this one error, when
> there are dozens of other, more common, simpler explanations.

Most likely, short of the poster telling us what the .avi file is, it's
very likely this will fix his problem.

> Additionally, a quick scan of Google shows that this problem is a) fixed
> in SP2, which the OP should have been running anyway, b) applies only to
> XP and XPhome without SP2, c) is caused only by AVI files without indices
> (rare). Probability approaches 1 that if you have an AVI file with no
> index, it's corrupt and won't fuggin work anyway.

SP2 cripples the divx pro v5x series codec, prior to 5.2; SP2 also
cripples your tcpip.sys file, limits you to 10 connections unless you
replace it.

As I tried to explain to you, the .avi file format is a container only
the codec decides the indexing. Not the file. Moron.

> Not to mention d) when you use YOUR method, you lose the ability to view
> thumbnails/previews in Explorer for all the video files on your computer.

Do you not understand the security risk in having explorer give you
little previews? Back a few years ago, the preview pane opening in
outlook express was all one needed to infect you, uptodate virus
scanner and all. Talk about not doing something stupid. With all the
exploits known concerning IE, you want it to pull meta tag information,
and hope to god somebody hasn't figured out how to craft one that'll
execute code instead? You daft bloated fucking idiot.

> Seems like easier solutions would include a) not downloading corrupted
> .avi files, b) not using a pirated copy of Windows that you're afraid to

A pirated copy of windows? ***. It's not hard to run a pirated copy.
You simply need a good key, and they do exist.

> patch from MS.com, or c) apply the hotfix from MS (released in August
> of 2003, http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;822430;
> please don't make a bigger fool of yourself by ignoring the datestamp on

I already said this was a known problem with Windows XP, I'm not
surprised at all it's been fixed. What surprises me tho, is you didn't
know about it until I mentioned it.

> Of course, there is the secondary consideration of wondering why the avi
> is corrupt in the first place; if it's an originally-authored file, it
> could be an early warning sign of a hard drive going to ***. But that's
> another issue altogether.

I have several originally authored .avi files, that are encoded with
divx and xvid, and explorer will hold onto them, short of applying the
reg patch, the fix, or terminating explorer. Their is nothing wrong
with the .avi files, it's a problem with windows.

> But hey, what the hell do I know, right? Far better to impress the world
> with how 1337 I am by using some half-baked registry hack.

You've already shown us you don't know much.
> His understanding is wrong; it's not due to 'the way DivX files are
> encoded,' it's due to the fact that the particular .avi in question is
> either corrupt or badly authored, and XP has a problem with *that*.

Sigh, the codec doesn't manufacturer the .avi file, it's simply
encoding the video stream. Whatever application that was used for the
conversion created the file. And it is a problem with windows, this
doesn't occur on linux, or windows 9x boxes.

> And what does your solution provide for those of us who *want* to be able
> to find the properties, including thumbnails, of .avi files?

You can find the properties, but you will lose thumbnail view.

> not to mention (5) Your solution is unnecessarily esoteric and complex,
> (6) it has undesireable side-effects, (7) it is addressed in both existing
> service packs and existing hotfixes that were released years ago and that
> any idiot can install, and (8) in spite of being repeatedly called on it,
> you are *still* incapable of properly contracting "you are."

Apparently, the poster didn't know about it, and never bothered to
install any fixes. Microsoft has it listed as an optional fix.

> *You're* a fucking moron, kid. But hey, keep on painting that target on
> *your* forehead, I can always use an ego boost.

Yea.. You don't know handles, processes, the fact .avi is just a file
format (or, container), and I'm the moron? If it makes you feel better
about yourself to think that. :)

Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org