If you're going to use bits of ancient texts as encryption keys, wouldn't the Illiad be a more appropriate source for a trojan?
A new Trojan that distributes itself through Facebook instant messaging and Yahoo! Messenger has claimed hundreds of victims. Computer systems have been infected by the software nasty in the UK, Germany, France, Denmark, Romania, the US and Canada during the past week or so, according to Romanian antivirus firm Bitdefender. …
Because this has nothing to do with windows
Next time when we hear about another sophisticated (or not) Android trojan readily available for users to download , please speak up, and say hat it has nothing to do with the platform.
I would however not agree with you. On Windows unlike on GNU Linux, *BSD or even Android operating systems, users are quite accustomed to install software from various unknown, unverified places. Windows didn't have secure repositories until very recently where a limited number of software has become now available from Windows Store. For the last 20+ years it apparently never occurred to the smartest minds in Redmond to devise a mechanism similar to what Google had done with their transparent permissions system for Android apps.
Even if a mechanism exists (i.e., centralized store, permissions system or repositories) bad habits continue haunting those users. Been there, seen others do silly things...
So you do blame the OS (at least not directly) for this!
So which version of the Bible are we talking about here?
1.0 (Old Testament),
2.0 (New testament, Aramaic),
2.1 (New testament, Latin),
2.2 (New testament, English),
or that one the Mormons have.
They are all different, so which one should I be using to break the encryption on this Trojan?
You forgot The Apocrypha - otherwise known as Old Testament Service Pack 1.
The article would indicate one of the versions of The New Testament (2.0 is generally considered to have been written in Greek). Could be any of the 2.x versions in any one of the language variations. Perhaps the Arapaho translation!
From the article:
>> "The data is eventually decrypted with numbers generated by an algorithm with a mathematical processor," according to BitDefender.
An algorithm with a mathematical processor?
What's that supposed to mean?
Would you install "security" software from somebody who writes gibberish like that?
No need to allow boring old grammatical norms nor sense to get in the way of spouting of the bollocks.
I can only (charitably) imagine that pre was missed off -processor but it's still rubbish.
To be fair: a security system can't pick its marketing department but you'd hope it would at least do us the decency of looking shifty whilst in their presence and apologise once they'd buggered off to talk twaddle elsewhere.
John (Leyden), Hi. You sure do make a lot of malicious assumptions/speculations in that report.
:-) You may like to ponder on what that reveals to one and all. And you could be perfectly enough correct too in your thoughts, given the frailties and temptations which so easily corrupt and defeat humans being humans.
I generally find it entertaining to read the 'download this security/optimze/cool new tool' links for Windows when browsing on Firefox, and the OSX ones while browsing wiht DWB.
As a Linux user, its like looking into the window display of a shop for extreme fetishist, you think Why would people buy that, and what the hell do they use it for once they get it home...
As with the 'spiritualistic' (angel botherers that type and speak in capitals like 'Light' and 'Truth') the god botherers are always ready to send tracts of gibberish to each other and feel more worthy for having done so.
I'm surprised it's taken to so long to hit such an easy target.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019