Just 12 minutes

"Ant" <not DeleteThis @home.today> wrote in message
news:57adne-LfMffpDfaRVnygwA@brightview.co.uk...
> "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
>
>> "Ant" wrote:
>>> I have since closed all ports so that even without a firewall I am no
>>> longer open to these kind of attacks.
>>
>> LOL yes as long as your are not connected to the internet which kind of
>> defeats the object.
>
> Read the original question again.

REad my posts gain.
>
>> Why not get well protected and unplug your modem etc???
>
> Read my other post in this thread.

REad my previous posts first.

>
>> You have gazillions of other software acessing the interenet when you
>> you do use the internet that can be infected.
>
> No I don't. Those that do are configured properly.
>
>> You are just bocking one hole in a culander. Rather pointless.
>
> I block other things too.

Your intelligene apparently?
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Just 12 minutes 

Daave wrote:

> I'm sure many here are very familiar with the notion that there
> is "a 50% chance of being infected by an internet worm in just
> 12 minutes of being online using an unprotected, unpatched
> Windows PC."

You should qualify that statement.

It should read "unpatched Windows NT-based PC". As in Windows NT, 2K
or XP.

Windows 98/se, as installed using it's default installation settings,
is not (and was not) vulnerable to network-based exploits (worms
mostly) like NT, 2K and XP were, and for which the phrase "Internet
Survival Time" was coined for (google that phrase for more
background).
 >> Stay informed about: Just 12 minutes 

From: "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump.TakeThisOut@invalid.com>

|
| "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
| news:EAqqj.19434$hF2.8364@trnddc02...
>> From: "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump.TakeThisOut@invalid.com>
>>
>> I stated...
>> "If you probe my IP you won't find out anything."
>>
>> You eplied...
>> "Computer off line due to a virus infection?"
>>
>> Not even close. It is because my Router is locked down, wob't respond to
>> 'pings', Telnet,
>> TFTP or other atempts at communication.
|
| How quaint, neither will mine.
| If fact you will find it hard to find a computer at my IP adress at all.
|
>> When you see the WAN address you can't see the
>> non-routable private address scheme of 192.168.x.y and the Router will NOT
>> translate that
>> WAN to LAN address from the POV of the Internet.
>>
>> Your conclusions in this thread are faulty to say the least and I am not
>> going to hash and
>> rehash answers to try to convince you otherwise.
|
| Better no do cos you will look very silly when I prove you wronog.
|
>> Please take the time to research this subject matter.
|
| An ironic statement if ever iheard one.
|
>> If you do you will learn that due to
>> simplistic FireWall constructs found in NAT Routers and specifically
>> Network address
>> Translation nodes from the POV of the Internet can not simply access nodes
>> on the LAN side.
>> Additionally you will learn the software based FireWalls are placebos when
>> compared to an PC
>> (even with open ports) that are behind a NAT Router or a Router with a
>> full FireWall
>> implementation.
|
| Largly piffle.
| Do some real resaerch instad of parroting something you found on the the net
| or repeatiing a salesmans prattle
|

< plonk >

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
 >> Stay informed about: Just 12 minutes 

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:eJrqj.109350$U12.53357@trnddc06...
> From: "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump DeleteThis @invalid.com>
>
> |
> | "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
> | news:EAqqj.19434$hF2.8364@trnddc02...
>>> From: "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump DeleteThis @invalid.com>
>>>
>>> I stated...
>>> "If you probe my IP you won't find out anything."
>>>
>>> You eplied...
>>> "Computer off line due to a virus infection?"
>>>
>>> Not even close. It is because my Router is locked down, wob't respond
>>> to
>>> 'pings', Telnet,
>>> TFTP or other atempts at communication.
> |
> | How quaint, neither will mine.
> | If fact you will find it hard to find a computer at my IP adress at all.
> |
>>> When you see the WAN address you can't see the
>>> non-routable private address scheme of 192.168.x.y and the Router will
>>> NOT
>>> translate that
>>> WAN to LAN address from the POV of the Internet.
>>>
>>> Your conclusions in this thread are faulty to say the least and I am not
>>> going to hash and
>>> rehash answers to try to convince you otherwise.
> |
> | Better no do cos you will look very silly when I prove you wronog.
> |
>>> Please take the time to research this subject matter.
> |
> | An ironic statement if ever iheard one.
> |
>>> If you do you will learn that due to
>>> simplistic FireWall constructs found in NAT Routers and specifically
>>> Network address
>>> Translation nodes from the POV of the Internet can not simply access
>>> nodes
>>> on the LAN side.
>>> Additionally you will learn the software based FireWalls are placebos
>>> when
>>> compared to an PC
>>> (even with open ports) that are behind a NAT Router or a Router with a
>>> full FireWall
>>> implementation.
> |
> | Largly piffle.
> | Do some real resaerch instad of parroting something you found on the the
> net
> | or repeatiing a salesmans prattle
> |
>

Ah running away when the going gets abit hot for you eh?
You still have no provided adaquate answers to my questions so that
is no surprise.
Were are the 48,000 virus infections I should be having, you didn't quite
manage to a address that one either, just concentrated on making
up as many acronymns as you can, oh and yes placeabos, how posh.

<Plink!!>


> < plonk >
>
> --
> Dave
> http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
> Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Just 12 minutes 

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:

> "Ant" wrote:
>> Read the original question again.
>
> REad my posts gain.

No point. There was nothing of value there the first time. You're
obviously a newbie and a troll.
 >> Stay informed about: Just 12 minutes 

"Ant" <not RemoveThis @home.today> wrote in message
news:4uGdnQZFR_2k_zfanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
> "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
>
>> "Ant" wrote:
>>> Read the original question again.
>>
>> REad my posts gain.
>
> No point. There was nothing of value there the first time. You're
> obviously a newbie and a troll.

No quite the opposite, you are either an idiot or a troll, if I had
to put my money on either I think I would tend to go for the fromer
but it's obviously a tough call and chances are you are a bit of both.
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Just 12 minutes 

From: "Virus Guy" <Virus RemoveThis @Guy.com>


|
| You should qualify that statement.
|
| It should read "unpatched Windows NT-based PC". As in Windows NT, 2K
| or XP.
|
| Windows 98/se, as installed using it's default installation settings,
| is not (and was not) vulnerable to network-based exploits (worms
| mostly) like NT, 2K and XP were, and for which the phrase "Internet
| Survival Time" was coined for (google that phrase for more
| background).

Not 100% true.

For TCP ports 135 and 445 - yes.

However Win9x/ME was very vulnerable to worms using NetBIOS over IP as infection vectors.

The BugBear comes to mind as well as Baloon and Netlog worms.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
 >> Stay informed about: Just 12 minutes 

From: "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net>


|
| Not 100% true.
|
| For TCP ports 135 and 445 - yes.
|
| However Win9x/ME was very vulnerable to worms using NetBIOS over IP as infection vectors.
|
| The BugBear comes to mind as well as Baloon and Netlog worms.
|

I believe early SDBot variants did as well. I f I remeber correctly they had a large list
of passwords they used to access NetBIOS over IP shares.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
 >> Stay informed about: Just 12 minutes 

"David H. Lipman" wrote:

> | Windows 98/se, as installed using it's default installation
> | settings, is not (and was not) vulnerable to network-based
> | exploits (worms | mostly) like NT, 2K and XP were,
>
> Not 100% true.
>
> For TCP ports 135 and 445 - yes.
>
> However Win9x/ME was very vulnerable to worms using NetBIOS over
> IP as infection vectors.

The default installation settings for win-98 did not include printer
or file-sharing turned on (while on the contrary XP's default setting
WAS to have file sharing turned on).

Also note that Win-98 was not vulnerable to Welchia or Blaster.

> The BugBear comes to mind as well as Baloon
> and Netlog worms.

Again, they wouldn't be able to infect a default installation of
Win-98/se - even a virgin install (no patches or updates applied to
it).

Also note that it was quite common to use NetBEUI (not TCP/IP) for
file sharing on SOHO networks back when '98 was popular, so again
there was an added layer of protection in the event that file sharing
was turned on.
 >> Stay informed about: Just 12 minutes 

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:39:47 -0000, "Ant" <not RemoveThis @home.today> wrote:

>No point. There was nothing of value there the first time. You're
>obviously a newbie and a troll.

That was obvious from the outset.


Jim.
 >> Stay informed about: Just 12 minutes 

"James Egan" <jegan.DeleteThis@jegan.com> wrote in message
news:610aa8F1t1svdU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:39:47 -0000, "Ant" <not.DeleteThis@home.today> wrote:
>
>>No point. There was nothing of value there the first time. You're
>>obviously a newbie and a troll.
>
> That was obvious from the outset.

Oh was it? What a clever little troll we are aren't we?
Mommy must be right proud of you.


>
>
> Jim.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Just 12 minutes 

"James Egan" wrote:

>"Ant" wrote:
>>You're obviously a newbie and a troll.
>
> That was obvious from the outset.

A very poor performance ending up with IKYABWAI lameness.
 >> Stay informed about: Just 12 minutes 

"Ant" <not DeleteThis @home.today> wrote in message
news:vZidnT3EuPRbHTbanZ2dnUVZ8s-qnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
> "James Egan" wrote:
>
>>"Ant" wrote:
>>>You're obviously a newbie and a troll.
>>
>> That was obvious from the outset.
>
> A very poor performance ending up with IKYABWAI lameness.


And lets face it nobody but a hardcore troll would use term IKYABWAI.
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Just 12 minutes