Virus on page?

In article , Commander Kinsey
wrote:

Who uses IOS? I doubt the percentage is very high. Isn't that just
small Apple devices?

Lots of people. At it's height about 60% of the market.

Now it's 23% of mobiles and 75%'of tablets
http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-...bile/worldwide
http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-...blet/worldwide

What market are you referring to? Why are you omitting real computers -
laptops and desktops?

If you'd read the link you'd have seen it was worldwide. As a proportion
of all 'computers' iOS is the third most common OS in the world
http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share

I call bull****. Phones are a small percentage of all computing devices.

not true. phones are by far the dominant computing platform, both in
units sold and in usage, with no signs of slowing down.

https://ei.marke****ch.com/Multimedi...H/MW-EK754_pc_
sma_20160420143127_ZH.jpg

iOS is only on those silly little things, not real computers. A telephone is
to make phonecalls. A computer is for computing.

ios runs on more than phones, which are real computers, and in some
cases, more powerful than what sits on someone's desk.

On 23/03/2019 21:36, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 21:13:31 -0000, David in Devon
wrote:

On 23/03/2019 19:27, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 10:55:27 -0000, David in Devon
wrote:

On 23/03/2019 02:02, Commander Kinsey wrote:

Tax men aren't clever enough.

cough Yes - they are! ;-)

Not in my experience.

I know you will recognise that in my role as a Financial Adviser after
my naval career I worked closely with solicitors, accountants and tax
officials mainly, but not solely, with Inheritance Tax matters.

I am BOUND to have more experience than you, Commander! ;-)

They've not caught me yet.

I doubt you ever worked hard enough, for long enough, to earn enough for
the Revenue to worry about! ;-) :-P

--
David B.
Devon, UK

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 22:14:59 -0000, David in Devon wrote:

On 23/03/2019 21:36, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 21:13:31 -0000, David in Devon
wrote:

On 23/03/2019 19:27, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 10:55:27 -0000, David in Devon
wrote:

On 23/03/2019 02:02, Commander Kinsey wrote:

Tax men aren't clever enough.

cough Yes - they are! ;-)

Not in my experience.

I know you will recognise that in my role as a Financial Adviser after
my naval career I worked closely with solicitors, accountants and tax
officials mainly, but not solely, with Inheritance Tax matters.

I am BOUND to have more experience than you, Commander! ;-)

They've not caught me yet.

I doubt you ever worked hard enough, for long enough, to earn enough for
the Revenue to worry about! ;-) :-P

That's what I make them think.

--
"The gene pool could use a little chlorine."

On 20/03/2019 12:16, Diesel wrote:
Diesel Wed,
20 Mar 2019 07:54:24 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

The only thing that seperates a malicious program from being a
trojan vs a virus is the self replication. If it does, it's a
virus. If it doesn't, it's a trojan. No exception, no middle
ground, no haggle room. Malwarebytes deals with one, doesn't touch
the other.

For the purposes of clarification and additional disclosure I bring
up the following finer aspects. I didn't include this previously
because I wanted to keep things as simple as possible, realizing that
the majority of those who might read this have no clue what malware
actually is and don't know the differences between a trojan, a virus,
a worm, or a virus and worm combination. Or, the different types of
all four one can encounter.

In fairness to Malwarebytes, they can skate on very thin ice with the
virus detection claim by being able to detect worms. Which are a
subset of a virus. The difference being, one requires a host and the
other has it's own. A virus injects it's own code into already
existing programs, it has no home of it's own. It's not self
contained. A worm on the other hand does not infect already existing
programs. Instead, it's a completely seperate file, containing a
fully functional copy of itself.

Malwarebytes can detect worms because they can be treated just like a
trojan or non replicating malware, even though they are, typically
capable of replication in some way shape or form. Either additional
copies of themselves locally on the machine (as with the so called
companion virus), and/or network aware and attempting to pass along
copies that way.

A virus which works by inserting it's own code into other already
existing program executables is not the type of virus that
Malwarebytes can fully handle. By fully I mean, if the virus code is
static and never changes location or form to a point, a signature*
could be written that offered detection. If the virus code isn't
setup this way, or they don't feel comfortable creating a signature,
the virus will remain entirely unknown to Malwarebytes.

This is all pretty much a moot point though, because, as I stated
previously, they don't focus on self replicating malware. And there
isn't any actual virus signatures in the database and never has been.

Even having a signature offers you detection only, maybe, but the
only cure they can provide you is the deletion of any files found to
contain the matching signature. If the virus is a fast infector, like
say Irok, well, you'd be deleting almost every executable on your
machine in a short period of time after the initial infection took
place. Where as with a real antivirus, kaspersky, f-prot, etc, they
can disinfect the virus and you won't have to reload your system. In
this case, disinfect literally means removing the code the virus
added to your executable and restoring things as they originally
were, possibly with a little padding to offset for unknowns.

Viruses have various infection options and this causes some issues
with disinfection if the virus doesn't perform it's processes
correctly, or, the infection process is flawed.

*Now then, concerning signature creation. Since most of them aren't
low level coders, they aren't going to lock onto a good looking,
oddball piece of code with IDA pro and acquire the physical location
of said code inside the file on disk. Instead, they open a hex editor
and have a look for things they think will be unique or have a very
unlikely chance of being in the same place as a legitimate program.

That becomes the signature. And yes, as you might have guessed, this
has led to false positives which has resulted in some cases,
requiring customers to take their computers into a shop for
servicing, or, if they're knowledgeable enough, repair it themselves
by replacing the deleted files that shouldn't have been.

Up to and including official MS runtimes, etc. HLL languages have
things in common, certain tell tales; never a good idea to use any of
that section of the executable for the creation of a signature.
You're bound to snag innocent programs because they were written and
compiled in the same language as the malware sample you're examining.

Their own forums still have posts of users complaining about legit
files getting whacked and needing help restoring them. If you're a
newbie and Malwarebytes messes up, you could find yourself in quite a
pickle fast. It can be as bad as a faulty MS update.

Luckily I suppose for Malwarebytes, An actual virus or worm is rare.
So they don't have to be too concerned with providing any real
protection against them. I haven't seen one in the wild on any
machines I've serviced in years.

Malwarebytes also culls their database from time to time. That is,
they remove signatures to malware that they think has gone extinct
and no longer poses any threat to people. That opens your system up
to becoming infected by the malware which is no longer known by
Malwarebytes. I know of no other antivirus/antimalware company which
removes definitions to known malware.

The reason Malwarebytes has to do this from time to time isn't
because they're being more efficient than the competition (they'd
like you to believe that though), it's because the database design
has a serious, design flaw problem which has remained since v1.x
series of the program. In raw form, the database is a monster. A
monster that has to be loaded and processed in memory, entirely, for
the Malwarebytes program to be able to use it.

The powers that be refused to take steps, years ago, to correct this
evil, poorly thought out, badly designed monster. A few hundred
thousand entries later, it's really become a mess. It's responsible
for slow scan times, excessive memory consumption, and the memory
leaks they still haven't fixed. The program would be alot more
responsive, even on older machines, if they'd fix that database
issue.

The database is designed to be human friendly readable in raw form,
for non coder orientated persons. It's not converted to some binary
database of sorts prior to being final processed. The same human
friendly raw form is the one the malwarebytes engine has to load
entirely into memory and parse as needed. It's loading megabytes of
trash that it doesn't need, just to please the human counter parts
responsible for the definitions present. All because they're
unwilling to write a simple, midway conversion to take the human
friendly version, strip it to engine friendly, and final process it.

The engine doesn't need to waste time loading english sentences and
parsing them to get the information it actually needs to scan for and
detect the sample. But that's exactly what it has to do in it's
present state. The same state it's suffered in since v1.0.

They can't even develop a useful, functional database that can avoid
being trimmed back down to a manageable size. Do you really think
they can replace antivirus such as f-prot, kaspersky, etc? C'mon now.



In closing, in any av/am configuration you go for, you're still being
provided a false sense of security. As for the most part, they can
only detect what they already know about. Little if any protection is
offered or even claimed (if they're being honest about this) for
malware which exists that isn't known to the product yet, for various
reasons. Malware samples are generated by the millions each day, many
server side style. It's just not possible for any av/am company to
realistically keep up with them all on a daily basis. There's always
going to be something out there that isn't known to your av/avm of
choice yet.

It won't be, until someone affiliated with the company runs across a
viable sample, or, someone (even you), gets infected and is able to
reach out to support and follow instructions for collecting a sample
of it and sending it along to them, if at all possible.

This is how it works in the antivirus and antimalware world. All
advertising claims aside.

This is a well written and a keeper.

Dustin should have written to Marcin about this by now and offered to
help them resolve the situation he has described. I think I've raised
this with him before but seem to recall him saying that companies
ripping off ignorant customers was none of his business.

Perhaps it's time for him to have a rethink about this.

--
David B.
Devon, UK

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 21:12:05 +0000, David in Devon
wrote:

On 23/03/2019 19:29, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 12:20:06 -0000, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 23/03/2019 03.02, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 01:33:25 -0000, Mayayana
wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote

| PDF for graphics and artwork.
|
| Do you really think we can't press "printscreen"?
|

** Yes. You can also counterfeit money. But there's
a difference between giving you a high quality TIF
vs a lower quality JPG in a PDF that you then copy
at 96 ppi. Getting good quality from that will be harder
or impossible.

I can get whatever quality you put in the PDF.* Same as I can get
whatever quality you put in a Word document.* The PDF doesn't protect
you, you're hiding your head in the sand.

And there's a deliberate effort required
on your part to break the law.

Predsing one key on my keyboard ain't breaking the law.* If the image is
on my screen, I can do whatever the **** I like with it.

No, you can't. Not within the law.

The image is on MY computer.* No logical person would say I can't do
what I want with that image.

I used to think much as you do.

What you cannot do, as has been borne out in practice, is to store a
copy of an image or video in an environment external to your computer
without the permission of the copyright holder.

Here's an example: https://STALKING_REMOVED

You posted a link to stolen copyrighted media ?

It took me a while to recognise that action cannot easily be taken,
though, with regard to images stored on Usenet servers! ;-)

Last time I looked a couple of guys were given 5 years in jail
for uploading copyrighted material to Usenet servers.
Just about any server will respond to a DMCA request for ID
(IP address and time of posting). Once they know who you are, it's pay
up or go to jail. Or both.
You've been lucky so far. Only received (numerous) take-down
notices for the crimes you've committed.

DO NOT EVER click on any links the poster "also" known as BD
posts.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190318192230/https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
[]'s

--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Nineteen Eighty-Four was a work of FICTION !!!! - Orwell

"Chris" wrote

| I actually do a low-tech version of that for my state
| taxes. The state of MA have somehow not got their act
| together to make fillable forms.
|
| Looks like they do now:
|
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/el...-forms-program
|

Thanks, but that's only online filing. I don't do anything
online that I don't have to. With the Federal
forms I download the PDFs and type into the fields. The
MA ones don't work that way. But I notice they call the
online version "fillableforms" instead of online filing. So
maybe they're deliberately screwing up the PDFs in order
to disourage their use.

| It makes perfect sense to get rid of these bit of paper and
| simply instruct our banks to perform transactions on our behalf.
|

You're paying them a fee for every transaction, for
no reason. You give your cash to the bank, they pay
the merchant, and the merchant has to give them a cut.
Why? Because you're uncomfortable using cash. I
wouldn't mind so much but I end up subsidizing fools
using debit cards and phones. And you think that makes
sense?
What if the whole system goes down? Once there's no
paper it's entirely possible that the entire record of wealth
and ownership could simply disappear. People glibly
assume there's lots of backup and trust online companies
to keep track. But there's no basis for that trust except
an unwillingness to even imagine such a catastrophe. Just
recently, MySpace lost 12 years worth of data.


| The privacy angle is fair, but long gone as banks already know all our
| transactions unless you stuff your mattress full of cash.
|
You assume people are using bank cards for everything.
I use a credit card for work materials most of the time.
That's about it. Mostly I use cash. And now that Bezos owns
Whole Foods I especially don't want to give him my personal
data. I have no debit card, no cellphone to speak of, and
no loyalty cards. No one has to be a lackey with a tracking
collar, afraid to carry cash. You're just giving extra fees to
banks for no reason.

And it's not as though I'm making a big effort to live
that way. I simply have no need to blow $100+/month
on a cellphone and have several reasons not to use one.
I also don't find cash to be especially dangerous or
inconvenient.

| There was a slight taste of that in NYC, when the hurricane
| stranded all the cellphone diddlers who'd given up their
| landlines and had no radios. Wealthy Manhattan yuppies
| were hiking uptown to charge their phones and seek news
| about what was happening, as they camped out in their
| apartments, living on day-old bagels and leftover take-out.
| But that was just a hurricane. Imagine a total breakdown
| of every system, from water to transportation... all the
| systems that allow 8 million people to live in vertical storage
| on that relatively small island, imagining themselves to be
| occupying the center of civilization...
|
| That event was climate change driven and they are becoming more frequent
| that any kind of solar flare. THat's why the risks of ignoring it are
| huge and will substantially impact on our daily lives.

Maybe it was climate change. But climate change
is a gradual, tremendously complex, unknown quantity.
Scientists are famous for being dogmatic about their
latest theories. But I'm not thinking of an either/or.
I never suggested ignoring climate change. I'm just
pointing out that that temporary breakdown of the
system was miniscule compared to what could happen.
The total collapse of modern society due to dependence
on brittle electronic infrastructure is a real, if minor, risk
that's mostly avoidable.

On 23/03/2019 18.39, nospam wrote:
In article , Paul
wrote:

For example, the table inside the document might only
have "ABCDE" from Times Roman. If you want to edit
the text string in the PDF file, and you need an "F",
it's not in the table. You may receive an error message
from the PDF editor that "the font is not available".

although technically possible, there is zero advantage in doing so.

The advantage is saving space in the PDF file.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 23/03/2019 23.07, nospam wrote:
In article , Paul
wrote:

For example, the table inside the document might only
have "ABCDE" from Times Roman. If you want to edit
the text string in the PDF file, and you need an "F",
it's not in the table. You may receive an error message
from the PDF editor that "the font is not available".

although technically possible, there is zero advantage in doing so.

It's got nothing to do with "zero advantage".

it does.

it's not worth the trouble to choose only the characters used.

It is a program doing it automatically. Not us.


I'm describing how these work.

incorrectly.

LOL. yeah, sure.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 23/03/2019 20.21, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 12:09:12 -0000, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 22/03/2019 17.52, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 12:20:49 -0000, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 21/03/2019 21.23, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 19:17:19 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:56:24 -0000, Chris
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 11:23:13 -0000, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 19/03/2019 00.16, Commander Kinsey wrote:.

You'd be hard pressed to develop anything worse than Adobe's
Acrobat
Reader.* Just try printing something from it, you won't get
anything
remotely like what's on the screen.* I often have to screengrab
it and
print it from Paintshop Pro.

Huh? I never had any such problem printing from adobe reader
reliably.

I have, I never get the size I expect.* Easier to put it into a
photo
editor with a screengrab, then you can fit to page etc.

Pdfs are vector formats and by definition can be scaled to any size
without
losing resolution*. A pdf print dialogue box always has a
"shrink to
fit"
and/or "scale to page" option.

By taking a screenshot your rasterising the page and losing the
benefit of
the pdf.

* Unless it had been saved as raster format. But that's dumb so not
common
these days.

I think the last thing I tried to print was a calendar - I'd found a
website that generates calendars for any month and year in pdf
format.* I
wanted to print most of the page, cutting off the borders, but
acrobat
reader was unable to, so I just screengrabbed.* I got the
resolution of
the monitor, which is fine.

Anything should be able to print properly.* PDF doesn't help here.

Actually it does. That's the whole point of the format. It is
completely
device agnostic so it doesn't matter what you're viewing it on or
printing
it with it should print as the author designed it. You often see
forms as
word files and they never print or render properly.

But what about how I want it?

That's not the main use case for pdfs. It's mainly a read-only
format -
forms excepted.

However, you can edit them in libreoffice draw or Adobe Illustrator
plus
others. Word allegedly reads them, but always makes a pig's ear of
them.

Why the hell would I want something I can't adjust before printing?* I
might want only the top half, enlarged to fit the page, etc.

But PDFs are not designed for you to alter at will. They are
designed to
be printed as is, just expanded or shrinked to page.

Why design something you can't use properly?* Not everyone wants things
exactly the same.

Because that is not "use properly" :-P

When I send a PDF it is print as /I/ intend, not as you intend.

Because you're more important than me?* You need your head examined.* I
want to print it as I want, not as you want.


It is my document. I decide. You want to edit my document? Ask for an
editable copy. I may pass it on, or I may refuse.

And that's how it is, that's the purpose of PDF, no matter how angry you
get.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 23/03/2019 20.29, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 12:17:07 -0000, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 22/03/2019 22.51, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 21:36:55 -0000, Mayayana
wrote:

"Jonathan N. Little" wrote

| Commander Kinsey wrote:
|
| The question should be, why are you deliberately preventing them
from
| editing it? Why do you care
|
| Copyright protection on original creative work. Allow others to view
and
| print but not modify.
|

*** That, too. But in this case it's not even that.
It's just common sense and good business. The
same reason we don't write out checks, receipts and
bills in pencil. The recipient has no right to change
them and such a change could be harmful as well
as criminal.

** I can only assume that Cmr. Kinsey has
decided to play devil's advocate. His repeated
questioning makes no sense.

Pssst, I can change your bill by simply screengrabbing it.* Your feeble
attempts are futile.* Anyone who wants to change something will do so.

That's why PDFs can be signed. Any modification is verifiable.

After printing?


That's a modification per se. A printed copy is invalid as proof. You
have to pass on the original bill PDF, not the paper. I can refuse to
pay if I get the paper only.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 23/03/2019 20.29, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 12:20:06 -0000, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 23/03/2019 03.02, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 01:33:25 -0000, Mayayana
wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote

| PDF for graphics and artwork.
|
| Do you really think we can't press "printscreen"?
|

** Yes. You can also counterfeit money. But there's
a difference between giving you a high quality TIF
vs a lower quality JPG in a PDF that you then copy
at 96 ppi. Getting good quality from that will be harder
or impossible.

I can get whatever quality you put in the PDF.* Same as I can get
whatever quality you put in a Word document.* The PDF doesn't protect
you, you're hiding your head in the sand.

And there's a deliberate effort required
on your part to break the law.

Predsing one key on my keyboard ain't breaking the law.* If the image is
on my screen, I can do whatever the **** I like with it.

No, you can't. Not within the law.

The image is on MY computer.* No logical person would say I can't do
what I want with that image.


Try that in court :-P

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 23/03/2019 21.52, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:19:27 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:38:35 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 04:39:41 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:


snip

Also big difference when it is a *vector* PDF. And editing text is
more
difficult. Yes you *can* take a screenshot. There are those who
always
steal; but editing my artwork without written consent would
violate the
copyright my clients agree to with the project.

Capitalist ****.


Do you get paid for the work you do? I'm an artist, and deserve to get
paid for my work...and we don't even get royalties like musicians and
actors...

You're as bad as them, you expect to get paid more than once for one
piece of work.

How the hell you you come to that conclusion?

Bricklayer builds one house, gets paid once.* He wants more money, he
does more work.

Musician records one song, gets paid millions of times over 30 years.*
Sheer laziness.

A writer writes a book. It is printed. He gets paid for every printed
copy sold. Same thing.



--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

For example, the table inside the document might only
have "ABCDE" from Times Roman. If you want to edit
the text string in the PDF file, and you need an "F",
it's not in the table. You may receive an error message
from the PDF editor that "the font is not available".

although technically possible, there is zero advantage in doing so.

The advantage is saving space in the PDF file.

fonts are very small (*much* smaller than the content of the pdf
itself), pdfs can be compressed and disk space is cheap anyway.

it's not worth the trouble to bother using only a couple of characters
in a font.

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

For example, the table inside the document might only
have "ABCDE" from Times Roman. If you want to edit
the text string in the PDF file, and you need an "F",
it's not in the table. You may receive an error message
from the PDF editor that "the font is not available".

although technically possible, there is zero advantage in doing so.

It's got nothing to do with "zero advantage".

it does.

it's not worth the trouble to choose only the characters used.

It is a program doing it automatically. Not us.

the entire font is embedded if needed. there's no advantage to choosing
individual characters, automatic or not.

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:19:27 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:38:35 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 04:39:41 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:


snip

Also big difference when it is a *vector* PDF. And editing text is
more
difficult. Yes you *can* take a screenshot. There are those who
always
steal; but editing my artwork without written consent would
violate the
copyright my clients agree to with the project.

Capitalist ****.


Do you get paid for the work you do? I'm an artist, and deserve to get
paid for my work...and we don't even get royalties like musicians and
actors...

You're as bad as them, you expect to get paid more than once for one
piece of work.

How the hell you you come to that conclusion?

Bricklayer builds one house, gets paid once.* He wants more money, he
does more work.

Musician records one song, gets paid millions of times over 30 years.*
Sheer laziness.


Didn't explain how it apply to me and my copyright that prevents
modification of my artwork.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com