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

From: John Henry (jhd_at_insurgent.orgy)
Date: 11/16/05 

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:18:58 -0500

Yo, Dustin Cook, I dug her rap! Mah mama din raise no dummehs!

>
> John Henry wrote:

> Like I said, > you don't know much about them. You should learn tho,
> it's an important security concern these days.

If I ever manage to get infected by anything, I'll start worrying, but I
have yet to see or hear of a virus infection that didn't start with an
ID-10-T error at the keyboard.

> 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.

ROFLMAO. Yeah, kid. Whatever.

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

I challenge you to prove this. I have never seen any such thing, nor have
I ever heard of it. VERY early versions of he Coco1, yes, but not the 2
and not the 3.

> 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.

I think I'll continue my current method rather than panicking at the
sky-is-falling buggery of a guy who claims that a Tandy color computer
will run MSDOS. Or, for that matter, that you can't boot to safe mode in
Windows XP without logging in. Or a guy who was still on the teat the
first time I connected to an online service (well, okay, at the time it
was called a timeshare, but whatever).

> 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.

Odd, I'm not hearing from any of them. Are the lurkers supporting you in
e-mail?

> 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.

So you *choose* webnews over a newsreader? You're even more ignorant than
I originally suspected.

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

This ain't Duke Nukem, kid. It ain't a battle, and you're no enemy.
You're just a stupid bitch kid that I enjoy helping to look incredibly
foolish. Pat Robertson is an enemy. Osama bin Laden is an enemy. YOU
are a chewtoy.
 
>> 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

Thanks, but if I ever get that interested - which I'm sure I won't, given
that everyone I knew on FIDO was gone a decade or more ago - I'm sure I
can find my way.

Now show me a working BBS that has a 20-year FIDO *archive* and I'll be
interested.

> Please, lets not try bsing anymore dude,

Only one person BSing around here, 'dude,' and it ain't me.

> I was a CoSysop on several boards up north that had fidonet feeds.

Name them.

> I haven't made an effort to
> check past posts concerning you, what reason would I have to do so?

It seems to be what you do.

Since you've lost track of the conversation again, I'll remind you - I
said it'd be cool if there was a google-style archive of FIDO. If you
have one (or the material to create one), by all means say so. If you
don't, shut the *** up about it.

> I've only attacked you for your clear lack of knowledge concerning file
> handles, and malware.

Neither of which have a fucking thing to do with any ongoing conversation,
which was kinda my point in the first place.

And if this is what you call attacking someone, I may have to invest in
some mosquito netting.

> 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 think you're a stupid user because you act like a stupid user.

>> 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,(snip more blather)

And where is the evidence that you wrote the virus?
 
>> 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.

They are if they have no index information.

>> 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,

> A very small number of users?

There's that echo again.

> Do you have the foggiest fucking idea what divx/xvid even is?

Yes, but this issue does not affect everyone who uses a divx/xvid-encoded
AVI file. It affects people who use badly-encoded or corrupted
xvid/divx AVI files AND who are running Windows XP without SP2, which
amounts to a miniscule number of overall AVI file users.

>> Hey, you're the one bragging about running MSDos on a tandy color
>> computer.
>
> When did I say I ran msdos on a coco3?

Are you saying, then, that you made a claim of fact/knowledge with no
empirical evidence or personal experience to back it up?

>> 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.

Please feel free to provide evidence for your 'most likely' and 'very
likely' assertions. Then see if you can figure out why I think you're a
stupid bitch for recommending a convoluted and unnecessarily intrusive
fix rather than a far simpler and more effective one available from the
OS manufacturer.

> SP2 cripples the divx pro v5x series codec, prior to 5.2;

So? There are hundreds of others. Some of them even work. Some of those
are even included right there in Windoze, you don't have to do a damn
thing to find them and use them, and they work just fine.

> SP2 also cripples your tcpip.sys file, limits you to 10 connections
> unless you replace it.

Actually, it limits you to ten *incomplete outbound connection attempts
per second*, and for the average user, it doesn't mean jack ***, just
like everything else you've posted.

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

Your continued bleating about how .avi is a container and the codec whine
whine whine is, once again, completely irrelevant to this conversation.

> 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.

...if you viewed an HTML file with malicious script and you had the
scripting host installed and you had your security settings wide open and
you had no firewall and and and and. Malicious script != a media file
thumbnail, kid, and Outhouse Depress != Windows Explorer.

> Talk about not doing something stupid. With all the exploits
> known concerning IEt.

What the *** do I care what IE does, the only sites I ever connect to
with IE are the ones I write - for testing - and support.microsoft.com
for downloading patches and service packs.

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

Little harder - though not impossible - to find one that will authenticate
for patching via windows update...and most people using a boot are going
to be too f'n paranoid to bother trying. Plus MS is rather nasty about
including code in their updates that'll hose bootlegged copies of Windows.

Of course, that's probably due to some arcane change to a registry key
with a 128-bit hex series for a name that serves no purpose other than
making the colon in the system clock blink, in your world. I predict
your fix will involve turning the colon into a CHR(13) and has to be
implemented using a hex editor, Borland C, an old game cartridge of
GORF for the Vic-20, and a blowtorch.

>> patch from MS.com, or c) apply the hotfix from MS (released in August
>> of 2003,
>
> I already said this was a known problem with Windows XP, I'm not
> surprised at all it's been fixed.

Then why the *** are you putting this poor guy through all of this
convoluted bull*** when you could have just said "download the hotfix
from MS, here's the link?"

> 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.

Then you're a fucking dumbass (there's a surprise) and you're doing
something wrong that causes your AVI files to be created without an index.

I repeat: I've never had the problem, and I've generated terabytes of AVI
files over the years - AVI files that play just fine on my win box or my
linux box or 98 or 2000 or 95 or XP home or XP pro or 2003 server, and
edit just perfectly. Thousands of hours of tape captured, and I have no
problems, yet you the expert consistently have problems.

Maybe that's a clue, AGAIN.

> You've already shown us you don't know much.

And yet every time you've attempted to flaunt your intellect, I've beat
you down like a two dollar whore...and I freely *admit* that I know very
little.

>> 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

"Conversion?"

> created the file. And it is a problem with windows, this doesn't occur
> on linux, or windows 9x boxes.

"This problem occurs because Windows scans the large AVI file when you
click it in Windows Explorer. When you click a large AVI file (for
example, when you click a 700-megabyte [MB] AVI file) in Windows Explorer,
Windows tries to query the index of the file. If there is no index
information in the file, Windows performs a loop to check all portions of
the file to build the index. Because of the large size of the AVI file (in
this example, 700 MB), it takes a long time for Windows to scan the whole
file. Because of this behavior, the CPU usage of the Explorer.exe process
reaches 100 percent."

No file index = either shitty authoring or a corrupt file. The index
should be written when the file is created, not left up to the OS to
create on the fly when you try to view the fucking thing.
 
>> 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.

Maybe I *want* the thumbnail view? Why should I go through all of the
hassle of a fucked up half-assed hack 'fix' that reduces functionality
when there's a perfectly good one available directly from the manufacturer
that works right?

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

We haven't even determined that the poster *needed* it yet.

>> *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. :)

None of the above is the least bit relevant to the fact that you give bad,
boneheaded advice, know about a tenth of what you think you do, and are
far more interested in trying to impress people with meaningless crap
rather than actually offer reaalistic solutions to problems. Nor, for
that matter, is it particularly accurate, but it's going to take years for
you to absorb the clues you've already been given; no sense in loading you
down with more. 

-- 
John Henry
http://www.insurgent.org/~jhd
Look upon my works, O Ye Mighty, and giggle.