Re: Mycrowsoft's appetite for opaserv worm

From: Joe Richards [MVP] (humorexpress@hotmail.com)
Date: 01/08/03 

From: "Joe Richards [MVP]" <humorexpress@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 01:12:54 -0500

Hmm I can't find his original post so I will respond off of your response if
you don't mind neo.

murthy64.... I am trying to understand what you think MS is to blame for.
The fact that you didn't apply a patch from 2 years ago to your OS or the
fact that you had an issue because you didn't apply the patch. If you
purchased your software, you should have installation copies of it so there
should be nothing that MS would have to purchase for you since you didn't
properly maintain the security levels on your machine. The only thing that
you might not have is your data which MS would have no possible way of
replacing as you would have maintained that with offline backups and had MS
some how gotten a hold of that data it would have been something else you
would complain about. Finally, try spelling Microsoft correctly. You just
look silly or unintelligent spelling it the way you did. I don't personally
care but I am sure that there are folks who looked at that subject and
thought "what an idiot".

Happy New Year. I hope you find happiness in whatever OS you choose that is
supposedly bullet proof and will remain so without updated for 8 years.

  joe 

--
Joe Richards
www.joeware.net
---
"neo [mvp outlook]" <neo@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:OTt2HbStCHA.2540@TK2MSFTNGP10...
> I looked at your earlier post and this one and I will go out on a limb and
> state some things that may or may not help.
>
> In your post, your subject line implies that Microsoft released the
opaserv
> worm to force people to upgrade.  While I can understand your frustration
> that Microsoft is suggesting that you buy a new computer/operating system,
> you must face that reality that the technology that is in Windows 9x is a
7
> 1/2 year old technology.  There has been plenty of time for security
> breaches to be found and patched.  To blindly think that computer software
> is bug free is not a realistic assumption since it is written by flawed
> human beings.
>
> While I'm sure you applaud Symantec, Network Associates, and myriad of
many
> others in creating signatures that can detect this threat, it doesn't mean
> that Microsoft has slacked off and ignored the issue.  They [MS] have
posted
> their fix to the problem in security bulletin MS00-072.  Perhaps the
> Microsoft Support person pointed you this article or perhaps they didn't,
in
> either case it is something that I will never know.  What I do know for
> certain is that to expect a vendor to give you a brand new something is a
> tad over the top when there is a well establish course of repair.  So, is
> there a reason why this patch isn't good enough for you and you still feel
> that Microsoft should give you Microsoft Windows 2000 or XP? In my honest
> opinion, they have acted honestly by providing you a fix free of charge.
>
> While we are visiting the land of fingerpointing, here is another question
> for you... why don't you blame Symantec or Network Associates for this
> tragedy?  Surely a security company that you purchased software from
should
> have had the foresight to see this flaw and protect you before it
happened.
> The reason that I guess you aren't blaming them is that you see it just
like
> I do, they can only react to a problem after it is discovered.  Why
doesn't
> this same philosophy apply to Microsoft?  Is it because your opinion is
now
> jaded by the ruling of the court?  Or is it that your core believe system
is
> that once dishonest always dishonest?
>
> The sorry truth of this plight, is that a security vulnerability happen to
> find you before the steps where taken to correct it.  You shouldn't be
> blaming others when the course of action was clear on October 10, 2000.
>
> Just my $.02
> /neo
>
>
> "m" <murthy64@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:00ef01c2b500$5e22c680$d6f82ecf@TK2MSFTNGXA13...
> > Mycrowsoft's appetite for opaserv worm
> > by murthy64@hotmail.com
> > Dear All:
> > A number of respondents came thru, mostly MVP's, to my
> > information campaign.
> > They questioned my objective: I want to inform Windows 98
> > and 95 users
> > about Opaserv. They asked me what do I expect from
> > Mycrowsoft:
> > I want an apology and replacement of software free of cost
> > among other things.
> > They said I'm spreading mis-information: I am attaching
> > the URL's
> > for the most respected organizations in the software
> > business (unlike
> > crooked Seattle companies making software for the world).
> > You
> > decide who is to gain by questioning the license of
> > Windows software
> > on your computer?
> >
> > Unlike MVP's I don't have time to respond to every post
> > here even if
> > they are well intended responses to my posts. I've devoted
> > a weekend
> > to inform my neighbors about the evil worms Mycrowsoft can
> > spread.
> > I have a family to feed. I may be able to answer a limited
> > number of
> > emails sent to murthy64@hotmail.com. If you want to attack
> > me
> > or accuse me please don't post your response on the web as
> > I don't
> > intend to read.
> >
> > http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32
> > .opaserv.k.worm.html
> >
> > http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_99924.htm
> > This worm spreads via network shares.
> > Payload
> >
> > The worm attempts drops a trojan, C:\MSLICENF.COM
> > (detected as QZap248
> >  with the 4240 DAT files), which can overwrite the boot
> > sector,
> > delete the CMOS, and delete the contents of the hard disk.
> > Reference to this file is placed in the AUTOEXEC.BAT file.
> > It then
> > restarts the computer by dropping the file BOOT.EXE
> > (detected as
> > Reboot-V the 4240 DAT files), and running it. Upon reboot,
> > the .COM
> >  file is executed. The following message is displayed.
> > NOTICE:
> >
> > Illegal Microsoft Windows license detected!
> > You are in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright
> > Act!
> >
> > Your unauthorized license has been revoked.
> >
> > For more information, please call us at:
> >
> >    1-888-NOPIRACY
> >
> > If you are outside the USA, please look up the correct
> > contact
> > information on our website, at:
> >
> >    www.bsa.org
> >
> >
> > Business Software Alliance
> > Promoting a safe & legal online world.
> >
> >
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • FW: Actions for the Blaster Worm - Special Edition, TechNet Flash
    ... Actions for the Blaster Worm - Special Edition, ... You are receiving this message because you are a Microsoft newsletter ... Presence of the file msblast.exe in the WINDOWS SYSTEM32 directory ... antivirus vendor and scan your machine. ...
    (Focus-Microsoft)
  • Re: Cant apply KB835732 on various Win2k systems
    ... So these machines have the Sasser worm? ... Microsoft has learned about a worm identified as "W32.Sasser.worm" that is ... Windows XP Professional ... > AnalyzePhaseOne: used 7691 ticks ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.security)
  • Re: XP has no significant bugs other than those of its defenders
    ... Seems to me the issue was the poor architecture of the windows ... was Linux number one, linux would be as virus infected as windows, but ... people walk away thinking poor old microsoft is just a victim, ... but you posted it half a dozen times in response to ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Sasser Virus
    ... NEW WORM: SASSER ... Microsoft has learned about a worm identified as "W32.Sasser.worm" that is ... Windows XP Professional ... sluggish or your Internet connection is slow ...
    (microsoft.public.security.virus)
  • URGENT MICROSOFT SECURITY ANNOUNCEMENT
    ... Subject: URGENT MICROSOFT SECURITY ANNOUNCEMENT ... The Code Red Worm and mutations of the worm pose a ... Every organization or person who has Windows NT or Windows 2000 ... For more information on the Microsoft Security Notification Service ...
    (Bugtraq)