Re: Atguard?

Bogwitch wrote:

For you to have tested 'Generally every' package available to any reliable depth would take an inordinate amount of time. You are a liar.


No, you're just stupid. Just like no-one has ever tested every toast with jam on the world, you can still reasonably assume that they all fall down with the jam side on the bottom.

Leaving a sizeable 10% again.
For those 10% the problem doesn't exist.
You know them all, personally?

Why should I? It's a matter of definition.

Your definition is wrong.


What a nonsense. You want to define a problem that doesn't exist from nowhere, blaming it exactly on those who don't consider it as a problem.

Cite one piexce of malware that uses a priv. escalation in Atguard.

Agobot/Gaobot

Bollocks. You know full well that it is not priv. escalation that agobot performs. It simply attempts to disable the software.


If you don't know what you're talking about, please just shut up. Agobot/Gaobot is an open-source malware with literally thousand of available plugins and the trivial possibility to implement your own plugins. I can assure you that there are multiple plugins available for generic privilege escalation for all kinds of driver bugs, including the one mentioned.

Your solution of 'not using that software' is not a solution.

It is. Trivially.

Not if it provides a function not provided by other software.


We're talking about common ad-ware supported software. This doesn't even nearby fall into alternative-less software. Your claim is very unplausible.

Because it's entirely different. And, as I told you, "layered security" is a common buzzword for selling an entirely different concept than "defence in depth", but trying to inherit the good fame of the latter by simple confusion.

It is not entirely different. Layered security is a subset of defence-in-depth.


Bullshit. Layered security doesn't provide defence-in-depth, since breaking one layer is sufficient to break the entire system (and that's why you have to avoid adding unnecessary "layers").

Sorry, but if you're running with admin rights and then install malware you're hosed and it's simply your fault.

Yes, but where in the thread was that suggested?

By you. You claimed that common stupidities (like not configuring software correctly, consider bullshit/ad-ware as legitimate) should be regarded as basic parts of reasonable definition. According to that, milk is produced like cola and the world was created about 6000 years ago.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: THE THREE "LAWS OF THOUGHT"
    ... >>propositions are common, and some are contradictory when the value is False. ... "if you call people stupid you are stupid" ... ... the verb is self referencing here. ... You HAVE heard of the Liar Paradox, ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: OT: Just Peppered
    ... nylon rob wrote: ... label, most often label me liberal - but I believe that is because I ... I have almost no patience for those who make stupid mistakes while ... NO WAY a "common" or acceptable situation. ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • Re: Obfuscated Ambiguities.
    ... > dictionary definitions. ... Dork. ... rely on the concept of time, but it's utterly ludicrous to rely on a common dictionary. ... Are you really that stupid? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Need help picking out an HDTV
    ... It has to do with common sense,, ... If you were buying a house, or a kidney then my comments are stupid. ... Buying a TV - rather than saving the money for retirement, ... I have no kids and don't ever plan on having kids, ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)