From: "Hrvoje Mesing" 


"Geo"  wrote in message
news:42f65cc8$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> "John Beckett" 
wrote in message
> news:uo6bf1h7u1utrt3okd9dgn3qtvc361h9h1{at}4ax.com...
>
>> It is obvious that any decent scripting or programming language can
>> produce a program that can do malicious things. It is pretty trivial to
>> write a script that finds other scripts and changes their contents.
>
> I'm not a virus writer so I don't know what the concept these proof of
> concept virus were supposed to prove  but obviously they have proved it so
> whoever was saying it wasn't possible so it doesn't need to be secured or
> there doesn't need to be concern about an insecurity here is now proven
> wrong?
>
> Remember the activeX argument that said it requires signing so it's safe?
> How many "safe for scripting" activex controls have proven
to not be safe
> now? 10, 12?
>
> This is really no different, someone must have been arguing that it wasn't
> possible to do whatever they are doing in the poc code, that's the whole
> reason for poc code, to prove that it is possible. To me that says that
> someone in the monad project has been once again giving features priority
> over security which seems pretty typical for everyone at MS except maybe
> for
> the DNS group.


-+-

Sorry ... but what are You talking about ? :) What this "Monad"
"Virus" does is what I would like it to to in the future too :))
Im a little betatester of Monad. Seems that I created a lot of viruses
scripting in msh :p (and I'm using them in almost every day work). I would
like it to stay as this and yes, I would like to have even more pipelines
to the core of every sub_system Windows has. Also, "monad" is in
dev. and yes there are problems, still, it is in huge beta and I wait like
6 months to grab last version, using it on Win2K3 and it rocks - at least
from the Automation side which MSH is all about in the end :)))))))))))
Maybe there are open holes for viruses, etc., but this aint one.


-+-
M.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5