"p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple"

Mon, 14 Sep 2015
08:49:48 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

They are a huge improvement.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.


Hand holding isn't improving the malware situation. Only
education can do that.

Hand holding is the way forward and Microsoft know it. They have
proved it with Windows Phone. Big companies know it as well.

That's insane.

You're the one who's needs the education. Common sense would be a
good place to start.

*laugh* Thanks for your advice, all the same.

Is your favorite search engine broken?

I've wasted time on your rubbish claims before. If they exist at
all they are perversions of the truth.

About as much as the US electrical power grid condition. That was a
very short discussion, wasn't it? *grin*

Understand code. Listen dickhead this continual bull**** about you
magically understanding code just shows what a rank amateur you
really are.

No bull**** about my understanding code in various languages. I've
already proven I do. What's more, I was also able to prove that you
BULL**** about your expertise concerning coding the majority of the
time. You couldn't even tell me what a simple program was doing and
you managed to break the ****ing thing because you didn't understand
a very very simple programming language. Enough with the bull****
already.

I'm an amateur in the same way that BD is a professional security
expert.

You can't develop security systems without testing
them. Staring at screens only gets you so far. How do I know that.
Because I write and test code pretty much every working day.

That's why it took you weeks to identify HEX then? That's why you
couldn't answer a simple question, even when full source was
provided, then? Who the **** are you trying to bull**** now? me, or
yourself?

Don't lecture me on developing security systems, either, asshat. I'm
not a newbie in that dept, either. Nice vague comment 'security systems' too.

This is rubbish as well. It can be quite difficult running XP from
a limited user account. Far less so under later versions.

Explain what you mean by quite difficult running under a limited
user account. As the majority of the time, that's exactly how my
clients run it as well as most of the computers here. This is the
only one that I prefer to run as admin all the time, because *I*
know WTF i'm doing.

If they need admin rights to install a new piece of software, it's
as simple as right click, run as admin, provide proper credentials.
Done deal.

Otherwise, a limited user account lets them surf the web and check
their email and play most of their stupid old games that still work
under Windows XP. Some games don't even need 'admin' level rights to
run, either.

That is what the majority of the public actually uses the machine
for and the limited account is okay with it. They can even work with
MsOffice under a limited user account.

So, what examples am I missing that joe typical is going to have a
problem doing with the limited user account?

You have no idea of the fundemental differences between a personal
firewall and a packet filtering brick. You are just waffling.

Stop trying to slime and evade the subject. it's typical, but,
boring. You brought up the built in firewall. I answered the issues
concerning it and provided a 3rd party viable option that provides
the additional control you whined about the built in firewall not
having. Now, you're just talking straight ****. Again.

There are cures for 'user stupidity' as I've already outlined.

No, there isn't. If that were the case, the AV/AM industry would be
extinct, right now. As it is, the UAC was annoying enough in vista
that people turned it down and/or outright disabled it. I'll ask
again, what good is a security feature if it's so obnoxious people
deliberately disable it? That doesn't help them in the least little
bit.

I don't connect to open/public WiFis.

Still haven't figured out you need a WPA2 patch for XP eh! LOL.

Really? Strange, As last I checked, that 'patch' was for XP SP2 and
down. Nobody should still be running vanilla, sp1, sp1a, or sp2
systems.

It does *not* apply for XP SP3; you stupid ****.

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl...34bcdd6d2=True

KB Articles: KB893357

This update to Windows XP provides support for Wi-Fi Protected
Access 2 (WPA2), which is the latest standards-based wireless
security solution derived from the IEEE 802.11i standard. It
also contains Wireless Provisioning Services (WPS) Information
Element support, which enables improvements in wireless network
discoverability.

Supported Operating System

Windows XP Home Edition , Windows XP Media Center Edition, Windows
XP Professional Edition, Windows XP Service Pack 2, Windows XP
Tablet PC Edition

Moron, I specifically said I didn't connect to open/public WiFis. I
*DO* use the Wifi here with several of the XP based laptops. No
patch required for full WPA2 benefits, either. As I don't run SP2 or
below. ALL of these XP machines are XP Pro SP3 VLK editions. *spank*

Want to talk more ****?

OK, lets talk ****.

Did either of those programs install themselves?

Can you install either of those programs if you don't have
administrative privileges?

Oh. You need an example or two of malware that went itw that did
escalate it's priveleges? I can provide them. Feel free to dig
yourself deeper. Just ask me.

As it is, I provided you two examples that took full advantage of
the encryption improvements MS the great has blessed modern editions
of Windows with. Why try to change the subject away from that? You
asked for examples. I provided a couple. I'd be happy to humour your
deflection about that and find you urls to malware that's 0wned the
MS be praised security measures you write so highly about too.

Why not kick your ass three for three in a row..

--
Optimist: Someone who doesn't know all the facts yet.