|
Posted by Leythos on August 5, 2006, 9:09 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
b__nice@hotmail.com says...
>
> >b__nice@hotmail.com says...
> >> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 00:29:32 +0200, Sebastian Gottschalk
> >>
> >> >B. Nice wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> So, it being detected means that he's got the right idea, about how the
> >> >>> actual malware works, but what he's failed to address is that his POC
is
> >> >>> worthless on a properly configured computer.
> >> >>
> >> >> What do you mean by "properly configured computer"?
> >> >
> >> >Please add at least a smilie when you know that he doesn't know an answer.
> >>
> >> Well, I'm actually just trying to understand Leythos' opinion.
> >
> >That's what bothers them - if you reason it out yourself and see that
> >anything that exploits a hole SHOULD be detected and blocked (AV,
> >Firewall, etc..) then you will understand that VB is just complaining to
> >get sympathy, not because anyone or anything is really out to get him.
>
> Sorry, but you will never be able to convince me that code doing
> nothing malicious should be detected as malware. We will just have to
> agree to disagree on that.
Explain this to me then - if a known malware takes advantage of an
exploit in program X, and a unknown program takes advantage of the SAME
EXPLOIT, how is either any different?
> BTW, I don't think "they" (whoever that is) care too much about what
> opinions I might form.
Explain to me why you consider two programs that take advantage of an
exploit, something that is known to compromise the integrity of the
OS/Application, should not be detected as a Threat?
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
| 
