Kurt?
Kurt Wismer ging uit fietsen en zag Re: Thanks Man.
 Hij dacht, "Dat moet ik Kuno Woudt vertellen."
 KW> actually, those people you site were also part of sarah gordon's
 KW> study... they are of a very similar mentality, instead of being
 KW> explicitly present when the dirty work is being done, they put the
 KW> materials for the dirty work in a place where they know that it will get
 KW> into the hands of someone who will actually perform their dirty work for
 KW> them...
 KW> sorta like hiring someone at zero cost to go and perform the vandalism
 KW> for you... (made possible because of all the posers and wannabes in the
 KW> vx crowd)...
If they wanted to harm others they'd include some kind of destructive
payload which they don't. (not a destructive one that is, some do use
a payload which prints a message on the screen or something).
 KW>> as they find satisfaction in defeating the operating
 KW>> system or anti-virus software, NOT in harming others or their
 KW>> property.
 KW> utterly false... if they found complete satisfaction in simply defeating
 KW> an anti-virus product, they'd never need to release their virus or
 KW> source code at all, they could just keep the virus on their computer
 KW> where no one can see it and scan it with progressively newer and newer
 KW> scanners until eventually one of them picks it up in heuristics mode...
 KW> they release the viruses, that means they derive something from the
 KW> spreading of potentially dangerous materials... they are not completely
 KW> satified by simply defeating an av product...
No, but they are completely satisfied if they are the first to defeat
a certain AV product or if they are first to defeat the OS in a certain
way. They release the virus source code in a vx magazine to show it off
to other virus coders, and thus gain recognition and respect in the
'scene'.
 KW>> Their virusses do get into the wild however,.. kids who are
 KW>> too lazy to write or learn to write virusses themselves will grab the
 KW>> virus sourcecode from a virus magazine and compile and spread it,.. the
 KW>> slightly less lazy kids might even insert a payload themselves. These
 KW>> virus spreaders are the real vandals.
 KW> they are both vandals... the only difference is that the ones who
 KW> release their viruses in magazines have managed to find a way to
 KW> vandalize while being even further separated from the vandalization than
 KW> they would have been if they had spread infected executables
 KW> themselves...
this true if they want their virusses to spread or harm people or their
data, but that's not why they've written their viruses.
 KW>> Then again, a certain amount of virus authors definitly will spread
 KW>> their own virusses..
 KW> yes, because they're stupid..
no, not stupid, rather immoral or something like that.
 KW>> no viruses destroy hardware,
 KW>> Not intentionally anyway :)
 KW> no known virus has ever destroyed hardware, intentionally or
 KW> otherwise...
I have some source code on my hard disk which unintentionally
mutilated some multisync monitors, so I could easily create one :)
But what I meant to say was that virus authors will not include
any hardware damaging in their virusses because hardware normally
cannot be damaged by software. Hardware which can be damaged (due
to some flaw in the design or something) by software will always
be very specific, that is, the method to damage the hardware will
only work on a certain series of a certain type of product from
a manufacturer. The chance of a virus getting to that specific piece
of hardware is so small that virus authors probably won't bother
writing code for it, even if they know how to damage that piece of
hardware.
 KW> it's ever so confusing quoting someone with the same initials as me..
:)
Kuno Woudt.
___ Terminate 1.50/Pro
---------------