If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
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 |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
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." |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
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 |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
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 |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
"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. |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
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. |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
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. |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
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. |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
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. |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
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. |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
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. |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
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. |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
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. |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|