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

• Previous message: Dirk: "Re: I found spyware on my pc, now what?"
• In reply to: David H. Lipman: "Re: Quoted from ZD-NET. ** New virus disguised as PayPal e-mail**"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:20:55 -0700

David,

Alright, I am here and will try my best to maintain a sense of decorum as
well as you have in our talk that we have ongoing here.
Replies <in-line>

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:eufZsSArDHA.2480@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> LuckStrike:
>
> Please don't take what I have said as an offense. On the contrary, there
was nothing wrong
> with what you posted.

OK, so if there's nothing wrong with what I posted, then an agreement of
sorts would be more what I would expect rather than the condescending
remarks I read. Maybe I read that wrong? I mean a simple understanding of
the import of the content, noting that it was "news" of less than 24 hours
old, rather than a dissection based upon semantics.

I am as a rule not very easily upset, but on occasion (It *has* occured in
this NG more than any other that I frequent) I will find a respondent just
needs, shall I say, a rest. So then I do take it kind of personal, when I
get a "snappy" or wise-alecky kind of reply. That being said, I normally do
not respond to such persons any longer, but I believe we've had some
interaction in the past, and I did not want to blow that all away. Also take
note (I'm sure you did) at my first reply to your input. I chose to
basically demur and defer. Even then, I felt personally put down and s*****
but did not want to get into it.

> 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.." ?

Again for you, as an expert you may take exception to my terminology. Maybe
it's a question of semantics (and perhaps accuracy?) but for those who truly
are on the beam, they'll read it, know about it already, will take it with a
grain of salt, or will simply read between the lines and say OK, or thanks,
or nothing at all.

To the point; That post was intended more for the myriad numbers that come
to Sec.Vir NG and haven't even yet heard of Swen, bogus e-mail MS updates,
returned to sender baloney and the like. This forum is to help those persons
as well. Surely, there are more inexperienced people than there are seasoned
ones?

>David continued: Replies are inline...
>
> "LuckyStrike" 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 ?

Yes Dave, a modest amount, but mostly academic and an offshoot for me. But
rather than saying I don't use NAV, or have little concern for the
NAV/Symantec issue as it is not something I deal with, I simply learned a
little something, acknowledged it, and left it at that. I accepted it as a
humble addition to the totality of mankind's knowledge.

But did you not side step the question posted by the responding party Dave,
and
chose not to acknowledge the validity of the viral threat that I first
submitted re: the PayPal issue, by pointing to the Symantec detail? In my
eyes, the PayPal issue is a pretty H.D. threat if one can be cajoled into
giving out their credit card information. Also, the fact is that
*everyday* - someone, you, AZC, Bill S, answer the same Swen, NS Update in
my mailbox, blah-blah, and so, that is acknowledged to it's varying degree.
But not the validity of my input. I am not expecting applause, but I did not
expect a lesson on the antiquity or Ho-Hum-ness of something that was in the
"news" less than 24 hours prior.

Regarding this exchange Dave, between you and I. I'm fairly confident you'll
agree that this quasi-combative thing here is not what we would prefer to be
doing. I'm sure you have more valuable use for your time, as do I. I can see
that it would have been more easily avoided altogether had I A) not posted
the original topic B) left the reply as a sleeping dog not to be disturbed.
Or
C) had responded, you are right, I am wrong; Sorry.
>
> | 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.

I think I'd rather not, but thank you anyway. I prefer a more positive
approach and philosophy as a way to offset the negative aspects of this
world in which we live. The Black Hackers, and Virus Script-Junkies are
enough, without heaping sophomoric "just want to get a cool-one liner"
repartees on top of it. Amongst "friends", NG regular frequenters; after the
issue has been attended to, that may be another story. But to deliberately
seek out or indulge in such banter interests me not in the least. I hope you
can understand that Dave. As a side-bar to this, there is a striking
parallel in the NG's in which this kind of behavior is rampant; and you've
said their names. Anywhere Virus/security is the topic, it seems to attract
the worst aspects in humanity, from age 8 to 80. "Everyone" is a worldly
wise, hipper than thou type. Not everyone really, but it attracts more than
it's share. <Lucky grumbles>
>
>
> | 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.)

So, in other words, because of some again, semantics, it was not worth
posting it? I wasted your time, my time, and everyones time then? To me
Dave, this is academic. People still can get the Plague; It's old. Malaria;
It too is old. Smallpox; was wiped out, now it's back. Polio; same thing.
The common cold; older than dirt, and people still get it. Been around since
probably the dawn of Man. So, in my view, new or old, makes little
difference. Either you can get something or you can't, regardless of
whenever it first originated, or whatever fancy names are applied to it.
Therefore I felt it worthwhile to post this for those who don't know they
can get a virus from a different and uncommon source.

> | <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.

I will again assert that the information should benefit those who most need
it; beginners, and the like. If an old-timer learns something -and it is to
be hoped that one can always be open to learning- then all the better. But
knowledge should not be assumed to be something one is born with. All
persons, the child prodigy an exception perhaps, start at the beginning. If
you didn't start at the beginning it would be akin to a cup of coffee
becoming hotter as it sat upon ones table; being born in the grave and dying
in the womb. These defy the principles and laws of "nature" (or
Thermodynamics, and Physics) so therefore the knowledge I intended to share
was to help people who know little, to become those who will eventually
(hopefully) know a lot.

Perhaps then they can become proficient, and share what they've learned in a
caring, unselfish, kind and generous manner with their fellow human beings.
It is also to be hoped that they will fill the ranks to replace the
jaded-burned out members and carry on with fresh enthusiasm and élan with
the hope of assisting people. Not putting them down, or wishing to be a
stand up comedian in the likes of George Carlin, Sam Kiniston, or Dennis
Leary wanna-bees. I am not directing this part specifically at you Dave.
>
> | 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.

So I have noticed, and my post was intended to be for *their* benefit. I
have been only a regular for ~ seven months, and I've witnessed quite a bit
in that time. But I've also frequented NG's (and have see you present in the
ones I have in mind) where there is a goodly amount of regulars who are
credited with using a heck of a lot of bandwidth (myself included) and there
is also banter, but it *rarely* takes the form of the ill-willed,
smart-alecky stuff I witness with frightening regularity in these particular
groups. There seems to be a celebration in "bloodshed" so to speak, in this
NG. This does not aid the cause. There was an instance where a "regular"
sullied every post (of the common garden variety) about "I received an
Update from MS in my mail - what do I do?" with scroll on down and look,
this has been answered a million times today. Virtually every post had this
"so-called reply" in it. I would find that quite disheartening for a
beginner. Plus they will by default, get infected, and then the Bot sends it
where? To everyone else of course. So it would be expedient to just answer
the thing and get it done with. Takes as much time to create some wise-a**
reply, than to supply an answer; even a canned copied/pasted one at that.
>
>
> | 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!

I respectfully beg to differ with you. This kind of attitude is, as I've
previously stated, rampant in this NG. I've been around the block and have
subscribed to in excess of 24 NG's and this one is up there with the
surliest, most self-assured as any I have seen or would care to witness. I
will say no more on whether I am "overly-sensitive", ridiculous, hyper
strung, or just more sympathetic an individual than others as to the nature
of kindness and being kind.
>
>
> | 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 ?

Been there, done that. And I'll do it again, and again if need be. If I am
tired, jaded, or worn-out; you know what my course of action is? I don't
reply; simple as that. Someone else will supply a sincere and helpful reply
is what I hope for. On occasion I might throw some light-spirited humor in
*after* I answer, but not before. And certainly never hurtful or
mean-spirited. As you well know, this is something "we" do because we like
it (?). No-one is paid, chained to their chair, compelled, forced, or in any
way, shape, or form, obligated to answer a post or submit one. If the
"attendee" has grown tired, do something that brings greater personal
satisfaction then. Read a book, go fishing, climb a mountain, help a little
old lady cross the street, be kind to your mother, fly a kite. Anything, but
take a break, for your own sanity, and for the benefit of those who have
just started and are frustrated, lost, without a clue, brand new PC now a
"smoking ruin". They need help, not jokes at their expense! There are always
exceptions, but I'm focusing on the bulk of "innocents" in this instance.

And yes, the questions are redundant; the poster is using the MS-CDO and
can't
find their own post, haven't figured out to "expand all" or click a little
box, don't know how to read the FAQ's, Search a web site, utilize Google or
Teoma, Sandi Hardmeiers, Jim Eshelmans, Doxdesk, Spyware Info,
Net-integration, or Karl Levinsons excellent site, among countless others.
this cannot be helped. Sure, some are lame (as it were) but many are as
innocent as newborns. My feeling is to always give the benefit of the doubt.

As to where I was? As a general rule I avoid this particular NG like a
"virus". I do show up on occasion often as a cross-post, about some update
or other. And then, when the RPC thing hit the fan, I was here attending to
those things within my abilities. Other than that, to avoid the general
unpleasantries that prevail within these confines, I make myself as scarce
as possible.

Lastly, some newsgroups are notorious for not getting more than a single
reply (if one is so fortunate). Must be "understaffed", the NG is a boring
one. It's only for true "professionals", lacking the "glamour" of a
"*Security*" "*Virus*" and so cloak and dagger atmosphere. Then don't sully
the post, and simply leave it unreplied to. Perhaps some well meaning
individual will then notice it has not been attended to and will provide
some much needed help.If it has been answered in a smart -guy kind of way
without being truly answered, then it may remain so by virtue of the "too
many questions", no time to reply to a previously "answered" one, syndrome.
Leave the post un-sullied would be my suggestion.

>
>
> |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 !

Well that was my sincere hope.

Yes Dave, I'm hip to that. What more can be said? I've addressed this (at
excruciating length I'm sure) already. BTW, I have done a similar thing to
help those to get set-up with OE as a newsreader. Also it's a bit tough to
tell "them" how to do it, if they can't even click the box to see the "how
to". Half of these unfortunates can't find the original NG they posted to,
let alone their own post, or the replies!

> | 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

Your direct honesty and candor on this is well appreciated. I myself had not
taken note of this prior to our own encounter, so I will not be one to pass
judgment on whether this is so or not. Again, I myself, am *not* without
faults, and am no saint. Some there are who would assure you that I am even
less than that.

Bill is a fine man (and you are undoubtedly as fine in your own way) and
I've had memorable threads with him. He is of kind demeanor, helpful,
knowledgeable, and has a fair bit of humor, with a charming disarming
quality. He is an excellent person to present as an example. I understand a
bit about faults, and I am not without my share; maybe more than my share. I
have my own business as well, and do many other things within my community;
sharing this duty with others who desire to help. We all have our own
styles, and that is an unavoidable reality. Even identical twins will have
some different traits, and surely different fates. We may emerge from the
same womb, but then must follow our own course.

In closing, please permit me to say (as if I haven't said enough already)
that I actually appreciate having had this opportunity to discuss -
monologue might be the more appropriate term- our views on this matter and
the other things that we have touched upon.The knowledge that you have
provided in numerous instances in other threads has proven most enlightening
and valuable and therefore I regard you as reliable and trustworthy. How
much more beneficial it would be if but a little more compassion flowed
forth.

With a degree of reluctance I now hit "send", but I am sincere in my wish
that we may be better able to understand each other, and to become "friends"
as it were.

Respectfully,

-- 
LuckyStrike
LS@smokedamagedfurniture.youcandriveitawaytoday.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------

• Previous message: Dirk: "Re: I found spyware on my pc, now what?"
• In reply to: David H. Lipman: "Re: Quoted from ZD-NET. ** New virus disguised as PayPal e-mail**"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]