Re: another VX site?

[Nick FitzGerald <nick () virus-l demon co uk>]

Drsolly to me:

> > Some would still argue (and have implemented their products thus) that 
> > that level of detection is not always necessary, _even when you are 
> > doing repair/disinfection_.  For parasitic malware it is understandable 
> > that you should need as precise detection as possible, but with so much 
> > of today's malware being either non-replicative (Trojan, adware, 
> > spyware, "hacking tool", etc, etc) or monolithic replicators, where the 
> > "repair" is "delete the file and its associated registry entries", some 
> > have become fairly keen on "close enough is good enough" for their 
> > detection capabilities (dressed up for marketing under fancy-sounding 
> > names like "generic detection", "advanced heuristics" and so on...).
>
> How will you know which (for example) register entries to delete unless 
> you hav an exact identification? Or which other files?

Don't ask me!

I didn't I agreed with this approach, just that it has gained something 
of a following of late (perhaps as a result of too much laziness and 
hubris among the developers??).

> The nightmare scenario is, malware that resumbles something else, but when 
> you remove it as if it were that thing, that leaves behind a SOMETHING, 
> which notices the bungled removal, triggers and ...
>
> Which leaves you with "OK, I had a malware, but my computer was working 
> fine until I ran your product, which TRASHED it!"

I absolutely agree!

> > Or here -- NZ has had such civil unions for about a year (??) now...
>
> I expect the yanks will copy us soon.

Not in the current right-wing, ultra-conservative-swinging political 
atmosphere.  Did you not notice that one of Bush's first suggestions as 
prez was to draft a new ammendment to the constitution that would make 
same-gender "marriage" unconstitutional?  With such a climate and such 
a complete lack of intellectual grasp at the head of its government (I 
mean, a constitutional ammendment to _limit_ personal freedoms in the 
country that prides itself in its openness and whose raison d'etre is 
the advancement of personal freedom?  From a president who supposedly 
represents the "less government intervention in your personal affairs 
is better goivernment" position?  Are we sure he is really off the 
weed???), such a move as "liberalizing" US marriage/civil union laws in 
such a way that might not be in full agreement with the extreme 
Christian ultra-right will be a long way off indeed...


Regards,

Nick FitzGerald

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.