Re: Quoted from ZD-NET. ** New virus disguised as PayPal e-mail**

From: David H. Lipman (DLipman~nospam~_at_Verizon.Net)
Date: 11/16/03 

Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 00:44:48 -0500

LuckStrike:

Please don't take what I have said as an offense. On the contrary, there was nothing wrong
with what you posted.

In subject was stated "Yet another way to obtain a virus...."

I just wanted to clarify the fact there is nothing new about this infector and it is not
"another way". There is nothing new about using the SCR file extension nor in using Human
Engineering to get you to execute an attachment.

So what makes this "...Yet another way to obtain a virus.." ?

Replies are inline...

"LuckyStrike" <LS@smokedamagedfurniture.youcandriveitawaytoday.com> wrote in message
news:%23CoOgk$qDHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| Well no... I didn't know about it until just now. So this then is a case in
| point.
|
| While I am grateful to you for making mention of it at this moment, this
| actually presents an excellent example of your taking for granted that which
| *may* come as a surprise or as something new to the "lesser beings" that
| chance upon this newsgroup. There would be little use for this NG, or *any*

Well we do have this discussion thread don't we ? Hasn't additional information been
yielded through this thread ?

| help forum for that matter, if all beings were as well versed as you are.
| However, this NG could then be utilized for the purpose of "inside jokes"
| for those persons who evidently have no need for help or any information
| that would bore them.

I think you'll find that kind of sarcasm in; alt.comp.virus & alt.comp.anti-virus thanx
to; Laura, Nicky, Bart and the gang.

| For your edification I quote you here: <start/quote> " It is a new variant
| of a relatively new infector, but its techniques are hardly new."

The Mimail worm was discovered the beginning of Aug. This variant is new. The Human
Engineering technique used is not new as indicated by all the samples thus provided of email
masquerading as something it is not. (e.g., Microsoft, Syamantec, PayPal, etc.)

| <end/quote> Well then, which is it? Is it new or is it not new? Partially
| new? Perhaps not any of the aforementioned. But then, that would be a
| contradiction of sorts. I remind you -if I may be so bold-, that which is
| (or is not?) not new to you, could *possibly* be new to others.

The NYB or Monkey may be new to many people but, they are not new infectors. Viruses are
always new to the layperson.

| Speaking of which, there is also a small chance that some may come here for
| their first time, however remote that possibility may appear to you.

The vast majority of posters, not repliers, are first-timers.

| Furthermore, they probably have not emerged from the womb with encyclopedic
| knowledge of PC's as some have. I would surmise that some are just born with
| it and some will never be afforded the opportunity to learn something, or
| try to help or inform, without getting cold-cocked and slammed for their
| naivety.
|
| I guess that's what separates the high and mighty from the plebes and
| unwashed masses. :-\

Now your getting overly sensitive and ridiculous !

| Insofar as the subject line which so irked you is concerned, I'd guess
| that's an absolutely valid reason to get all high minded and so forth. Just
| for the record I did not do much more than enter the By-Line of the article
| which was from ZD Net. Here it is once again, this time copied and pasted
| from that very page:
|
| *News Security*
| *New virus disguised as PayPal e-mail*
|
| By Robert Lemos
| CNET News.com
| November 14, 2003, 12:05 PM PT
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| *New virus disguised as PayPal e-mail*. I didn't write the article, I am
| merely the messenger.
|
| Perhaps at this point you might like to advise me and others as to what is
| and is not a valid source of information.
|
| In closing I am compelled to say I am most disturbed by certain tones of
| "well read" superiority which permeate your reply as well as so many that
| are habitués of this particular NG.

That's what happens when you answer the same question over and over again. Often becuase
posters fail to read prior posts, FAQs or even check the AV site for information of the
infector found on their PC. I can't tell you how often the question about the The Jdbgmgr
Hoax has been answered. Where were you 6 ~ 8 weeks ago when there were close to 100 posts
per hour often asking the same thing that had just been answered. in the priior post ?

|It is unlike me to generally go off like
| this, but it was brought on by your reply to me and others. Whilst I am
| having second thoughts on submitting this post as it is so out of character
| with my feelings of connection with humanity, the reasons for submitting it
| are valid in my opinion, and they still stand none the less. It is not my
| intention to create an adversarial environment, I was merely trying to be of
| some "help" to someone; yourself notwithstanding. Obviously I fell short of
| helping anyone I guess.

Helping ? You started a good thread of discussion. What could be more helpful. The only
problem is that since the vast majority of posters (not repliers) are naieve newbies whom
normally don't read before posting, those who need to read it - just don't. Why do you
think Andrew has to to post a daily FAQ and STILL it mostly goes unread !

| To plagiarize in part your own reply with some minor modification: "I guess
| its the tenor of the *reply* that got me and more or less my reply is based
| upon that *tenor*."

Many people complain about my tone. I don't sugar coat and say things staright out. Many
get offended while I mean no disrespect nor offense. It's something that I'm not proud of
and its something that I'm working on to change. To be honest, I wish I had some of the
qualities Bill Sanderson displays has in his replies. He is much more patient in his tone
than I. We all have our faults - you've seen mine.

Dave

Quantcast