Jax wrote :
> FromTheRafters  wrote in
> news:m6mmoa$602$1@news2.open-news-network.org: 
>
>> ~BD~ formulated on Monday :
>>> On 15/12/2014 11:13, p-0''0-h the cat (ES) wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:57:14 -0500, FromTheRafters
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> After serious thinking p-0''0-h the cat (ES) wrote :
>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:36:58 -0500, FromTheRafters
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I don't care why you posted the scoring info, and even less
>>>>>>> about how Jax *still* thinks something was wrong with
>>>>>>> exevalid after all of the explanations we have provided. Jax
>>>>>>> and Crybaby don't seem to be at all concerned about providing
>>>>>>> truthful posts. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That really is funny. Exevalid had a major mathematical flaw
>>>>>> in the 'coding'. It's a heap of ####. No amount of
>>>>>> 'explanations' will ever change that. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I stand corrected. Jax, Crybaby, and Pooh.
>>>> 
>>>> Pooh doesn't need to lie.
>>> 
>>> It appears that Rafters has a sense of humour failure this
>>> morning. :-( 
>>> 
>>> Perhaps he got out of the wrong side of the bed; for him, it is
>>> VERY early to be posting! He'll be "good to go" after another mug
>>> of coffee! 
>> 
>> Still no coffee, but my comment was about the fact that exevalid
>> had no flaw in the way it performed on the set of data for which
>> it was designed. The comment by Ant was not to be taken as "I
>> appreciate (am glad about) the fact that you didn't attempt to use
>> it on modern PE executables" it was more of an "I appreciate
>> (understand) that it wasn't designed for modern executables". Not
>> a negative comment at all, as some people like to make it seem.
>> 
>> I have no idea at this point whether Dustin misunderstood the 
>> capabilities of the program when working on modern PEs (the header
>> filesize information being bogus) or not, and I don't care, it
>> still stands that the program was not flawed. It does indeed
>> *appear* to be incongruous to take the absolute value of a natural
>> number, but in this case it was correct.
>> 
>> My humor is fine, you just have to be sharp enough to 'get' it.
>
> Rafty that's a very lovely way of saying that Exevalid only works on 
> a small subset of the data it might reasonably expect to be 
> presented with.

It is not an AI program, it doesn't expect anything.

> You wrote.... Exevalid "performed on the set of data for which it 
> was designed". 
>
> Unfortunately Exevalid's design does not properly handle all the 
> data it might get when run as an EXE validity checker. Especially 
> file sizes. Think about it!

You don't know what file sizes it was designed to accept, or that it 
was designed for checking for all possible reasons a file might be 
considered invalid.

If it was designed to weed out smallish submitted suspected malware DOS 
MZ exe files which had been accidentally truncated, from a set of other 
smallish submitted files and to weed out any files not having the "MZ" 
header then why not write the program the way Dustin did? You would be 
left with the not-truncated smallish MZ purported executables wouldn't 
you?


--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2