Malicious JavaScript code,

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by Noone Here, Jan 27, 2006.

  1. Noone Here

    Noone Here Guest

    AIUI, it was not all that long ago when the threat to personal users,
    was attachments that when executed compromised machines with keyloggers,
    trojans, etc.

    Now it seems that the big problem is reading a webpage or an HTML e-mail
    and getting affected through the scripting. My understanding is that
    the script downloads the malicious program from the web and sets it to
    run on start up through the start-up folder or in the registry.

    I don't know much about this; can someone suggest a good web site to
    start learning a bit more about these threats. I have googled, but I am
    not quire sure of the best search terms, and since there is so much
    information out there, a site that experienced people endorse would be a
    lot of help.

    In particular, it seems as if JavaScript dowloading a trojran without
    the user clicking an attachment is a big problem.

    Thanks.
     
    Noone Here, Jan 27, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Noone Here

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    Noone Here wrote:
    > AIUI, it was not all that long ago when the threat to personal users,
    > was attachments that when executed compromised machines with keyloggers,
    > trojans, etc.
    >
    > Now it seems that the big problem is reading a webpage or an HTML e-mail
    > and getting affected through the scripting. My understanding is that
    > the script downloads the malicious program from the web and sets it to
    > run on start up through the start-up folder or in the registry.
    >
    > I don't know much about this; can someone suggest a good web site to
    > start learning a bit more about these threats. I have googled, but I am
    > not quire sure of the best search terms, and since there is so much
    > information out there, a site that experienced people endorse would be a
    > lot of help.
    >
    > In particular, it seems as if JavaScript dowloading a trojran without
    > the user clicking an attachment is a big problem.


    Using javascript is just one of many ways of writing codes that will
    cause computers serious problems. Others include ActiveX, and just
    corrupted images with bad code hidden in them. At one time you could
    avoid bad sites and not open unknown email, and you usually would not
    get infected.For some time now there have been bugs that will infect
    you just if you sign onto the web. Especially if you have a Windows OS,
    you must take all Microsoft critical updates, have good virus
    protection, have a good firewall, and keep them all updated. Else you
    most likely will be infected soon. Some of the anti virus programs have
    links that will allow you to find what new bugs are out there and will
    describe an old bug for which you have found a name.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Jan 27, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > Noone Here wrote:
    > > AIUI, it was not all that long ago when the threat to personal users,
    > > was attachments that when executed compromised machines with keyloggers,
    > > trojans, etc.
    > >
    > > Now it seems that the big problem is reading a webpage or an HTML e-mail
    > > and getting affected through the scripting. My understanding is that
    > > the script downloads the malicious program from the web and sets it to
    > > run on start up through the start-up folder or in the registry.
    > >
    > > I don't know much about this; can someone suggest a good web site to
    > > start learning a bit more about these threats. I have googled, but I am
    > > not quire sure of the best search terms, and since there is so much
    > > information out there, a site that experienced people endorse would be a
    > > lot of help.
    > >
    > > In particular, it seems as if JavaScript dowloading a trojran without
    > > the user clicking an attachment is a big problem.

    >
    > Using javascript is just one of many ways of writing codes that will
    > cause computers serious problems. Others include ActiveX, and just
    > corrupted images with bad code hidden in them. At one time you could
    > avoid bad sites and not open unknown email, and you usually would not
    > get infected.For some time now there have been bugs that will infect
    > you just if you sign onto the web. Especially if you have a Windows OS,
    > you must take all Microsoft critical updates, have good virus
    > protection, have a good firewall, and keep them all updated. Else you
    > most likely will be infected soon. Some of the anti virus programs have
    > links that will allow you to find what new bugs are out there and will
    > describe an old bug for which you have found a name.


    Feel free to go in to some detail about how JavaScript "will cause
    serious problems". Also give some detail on how "just sign[ing] onto
    the web" will cause infection.

    --

    Hywel
    http://kibo.org.uk/
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Jan 28, 2006
    #3
  4. Noone Here

    Randy Webb Guest

    cwdjrxyz said the following on 1/27/2006 6:05 PM:
    > Noone Here wrote:
    >> AIUI, it was not all that long ago when the threat to personal users,
    >> was attachments that when executed compromised machines with keyloggers,
    >> trojans, etc.
    >>
    >> Now it seems that the big problem is reading a webpage or an HTML e-mail
    >> and getting affected through the scripting. My understanding is that
    >> the script downloads the malicious program from the web and sets it to
    >> run on start up through the start-up folder or in the registry.
    >>
    >> I don't know much about this; can someone suggest a good web site to
    >> start learning a bit more about these threats. I have googled, but I am
    >> not quire sure of the best search terms, and since there is so much
    >> information out there, a site that experienced people endorse would be a
    >> lot of help.
    >>
    >> In particular, it seems as if JavaScript dowloading a trojran without
    >> the user clicking an attachment is a big problem.

    >
    > Using javascript is just one of many ways of writing codes that will
    > cause computers serious problems. Others include ActiveX, and just
    > corrupted images with bad code hidden in them. At one time you could
    > avoid bad sites and not open unknown email, and you usually would not
    > get infected.For some time now there have been bugs that will infect
    > you just if you sign onto the web.


    I am like Hywel on this one. I would like to see some examples, or an
    explanation, of your claims that JS "will cause" (not "can" cause)
    serious problems. And as well as "just signing onto the web" can infect
    my PC.

    --
    Randy
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
    Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
     
    Randy Webb, Jan 28, 2006
    #4
  5. Noone Here

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    Hywel Jenkins wrote:

    > Feel free to go in to some detail about how JavaScript "will cause
    > serious problems".


    A very early JS exploit used script to open the Netscape home page in
    windows without limit. It also wrote "Crashing" in the status bar, and
    the computer crashed. This is a very simple bug by today's standards.
    Rather than playing child-like pranks such as the above, the modern
    hacker may not want you to know your computer is infected. He or she
    may be more interested in making your computer a zombie to send out
    spam email or to obtain your personal information such as various
    account numbers.

    > Also give some detail on how "just sign[ing] onto
    > the web" will cause infection.


    McAfee features a different bug on their security center home page
    every few days. Here is one of their descriptions:

    "W32/IRCbot.worm! is a medium risk worm for home users. You can be
    infected simply by going online. Once infected, your computer may
    restart continuously."

    If you follow a McAfee link to a more detailed description of the worm,
    you find in part:

    "This threat scans for MS05-039 exploitable systems. When a vulnerable
    system is found, it uses a buffer overflow to write the worm file to
    that machine via a TFTP upload on port 8594. Blocking this port via
    McAfee Desktop Firewall or McAfee Personal Firewall will prevent
    infection even if the buffer overflow is not prevented."

    Few of us have the time or interest to keep up with the details of the
    several new important bugs discovered nearly every week. If there were
    no more bugs, likely hundreds of people working at security companies
    and Microsoft would be looking for new jobs. I have both my security
    programs and Microsoft update set to update automatically so that I do
    not have to check for new updates very often. You also need to pay
    attention to the security program icon on your desktop. For example
    mine is red if it is working and black if it is not.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Jan 28, 2006
    #5
  6. cwdjrxyz wrote:

    > Using javascript is just one of many ways of writing codes that will
    > cause computers serious problems. Others include ActiveX, and just
    > corrupted images with bad code hidden in them.


    ActiveX does not run in my Mozilla/Firefox, neither in Linux nor in
    Windows. And on Linux, ActiveX does not run in any other UA, too.

    > At one time you could avoid bad sites and not open unknown email, and
    > you usually would not get infected. For some time now there have been
    > bugs that will infect you just if you sign onto the web.


    Probably you mean security leaks exploited to infect computers that have
    merely established an Internet connection, which is not the same.

    > Especially if you have a Windows OS, you must take all Microsoft critical
    > updates, have good virus protection,


    The (sad) truth is that no virus protection can be good enough. Vendors of
    anti-virus software cannot be faster than the thousands of malicious people
    writing malicious software. You could be the one that discovers your
    system being infected with the brand-new virus nobody knows about. Of
    course vendors of anti-virus software do not tell you this, they want to
    make money. Your money.

    > have a good firewall,


    Utter nonsense. A firewall, may it be just snake-oil software ("desktop
    firewall") or a real one (that is, a security concept including a network
    packet filter), cannot protect you from yourself, allowing your system to
    be compromised by running inherently insecure software and clicking on
    everything that cannot fight back. Of course vendors of so-called "desktop
    firewalls" do not tell you this, they want to make (your) money one way
    (you buying their snake oil and feeling protected while you are not at all)
    or the other (you providing them with potentially valuable information
    without knowing it).

    <URL:http://www.interhack.net/pubs/fwfaq/>

    Again, what is the right thing to do is not to use inherently insecure
    software (that includes inherently insecure operating systems), or
    configure the system as secure as possible if the former is not
    possible, and to develop a common sense for secure use of computers.

    <URL:http://www.ntsvcfg.de/linkblock_eng.html>


    HTH

    PointedEars
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Jan 28, 2006
    #6
  7. Noone Here

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    cwdjrxyz wrote:

    > Using javascript is just one of many ways of writing codes that will
    > cause computers serious problems. Others include ActiveX, and just
    > corrupted images with bad code hidden in them. At one time you could
    > avoid bad sites and not open unknown email, and you usually would not
    > get infected.For some time now there have been bugs that will infect
    > you just if you sign onto the web. Especially if you have a Windows OS,
    > you must take all Microsoft critical updates, have good virus
    > protection, have a good firewall, and keep them all updated. Else you
    > most likely will be infected soon. Some of the anti virus programs have
    > links that will allow you to find what new bugs are out there and will
    > describe an old bug for which you have found a name.


    You can of course reduce your chances for infection by using one of the
    lesser used OSs rather than Windows. Many of these are more difficult
    to hack than the XP, but also the XP is a favorite target of hackers
    because they can infect a larger number of of computers that way.
    Unfortunately many of us must use a Windows OS, because many important
    media and other programs do not have versions for other OSs. If you are
    working with professional media programs, fortunately many of these
    have Mac as well as Windows versions. Many of the media professionals
    love Mac for their work. Macs have been hacked, but not nearly as much
    as Windows.

    I should mention that ActiveX usually is found only on Microsoft OSs,
    browsers, and their close relatives such as MSN9. However there have
    been downloads available for Firefox, Mozilla, and Netscape to support
    ActiveX for the Windows Media Player only. The reason is that some
    write media pages using only ActiveX support. This limited use of
    ActiveX for the WMP only is likely much safer than full ActiveX
    support. Opera seems to have found some indirect way to support media
    for the WMP written using ActiveX code only. I have no idea how they do
    this, but it is extremely unlikely that they use ActiveX for anything
    on their browser. Of course, if one wishes to live dangerously, you can
    locate full ActiveX plugins for many browsers.

    I should add that spyware, malware, scumware, or whatever you choose to
    call it has become a big problem. If you have a Windows OS, you can
    download a spyware protection program for free.But they check your
    computer to make sure you have an official Windows OS, and if not you
    get no download.

    Of course it still pays to be careful. Stay away from doubtful sites,
    use an email service or agent that scans for problems, etc. I have
    never used Outlook/Outlook Express. I use the Yahoo mail service
    provided by my isp SBC/Yahoo DSL, but free Yahoo mail is available to
    everyone. They will not open any attachment for you until it is scanned
    for a virus. I open all of my domain mail at Yahoo mail as pop mail. As
    in most things in life, nothing is certain. You could be the first on
    the block to get a new bug before updates for it are available in
    protection programs. However, especially if you use a Windows OS, you
    can greatly reduce the odds if you have good protection programs as
    well as use caution about what you view or open.

    Even on a Windows OS browser, you likely can reduce your chances for
    infection by using a browser other than IE when online. I usually use
    Opera or Firefox, but you still have to use IE to view some sites
    properly. I have Opera set for very high security and use it for
    questionable sites. It asks for you to accept or refuse all cookies of
    any type a site my try to plant on your computer. I have seen sites for
    which you have to refuse cookies 20 times, and some sites will not let
    you in without cookies.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Jan 28, 2006
    #7
  8. Noone Here

    Lee Guest

    cwdjrxyz said:
    >
    >
    >Hywel Jenkins wrote:
    >
    >> Feel free to go in to some detail about how JavaScript "will cause
    >> serious problems".

    >
    >A very early JS exploit used script to open the Netscape home page in
    >windows without limit.


    Very early. What does that have to do with how Javascript "will cause
    serious problems"?
     
    Lee, Jan 28, 2006
    #8
  9. Noone Here

    Randy Webb Guest

    cwdjrxyz said the following on 1/27/2006 9:29 PM:
    > Hywel Jenkins wrote:
    >
    >> Feel free to go in to some detail about how JavaScript "will cause
    >> serious problems".

    >
    > A very early JS exploit used script to open the Netscape home page in
    > windows without limit.


    Trivial to do actually even now without a pop up blocker and considering
    that even IE comes with one by default (enabled no less) its not a
    concern anymore. But for kicks and giggles, you can disable yours and
    execute this script for fun:

    <script type="text/javascript">
    while (1){window.open('www.netscape.com')}
    </script>

    And anybody that surfs the web without a pop up blocker deserves what
    that script snippet will do.


    > It also wrote "Crashing" in the status bar, and the computer crashed.


    Repeatedly opening new windows causes that to happen......

    > This is a very simple bug by today's standards.


    It wasn't a "bug" then and it's not a "bug" now. It was an exploitation
    of user's ignorance about pop ups and the lack of a decent pop up blocker.



    > Rather than playing child-like pranks such as the above, the modern
    > hacker may not want you to know your computer is infected.


    And I will ask *again*. Post some JavaScript code that will "infect" my
    computer. I want to see it.


    > He or she may be more interested in making your computer a zombie to send out
    > spam email or to obtain your personal information such as various account numbers.


    Again, post some code. And, post code that will cause *my* PC to
    repeatedly send out emails. Go on, try it.

    >
    >> Also give some detail on how "just sign[ing] onto
    >> the web" will cause infection.

    >
    > McAfee features a different bug on their security center home page
    > every few days. Here is one of their descriptions:


    Anybody dumb enough to buy into McAfee's marketing hype deserves to pay
    for the product that McAfee is selling. Do you actually expect to open a
    website that sells an anti-virus product and not read how you should
    have it?

    > "W32/IRCbot.worm! is a medium risk worm for home users. You can be
    > infected simply by going online. Once infected, your computer may
    > restart continuously."


    Thats ignorance on the users part.

    > If you follow a McAfee link to a more detailed description of the worm,
    > you find in part:
    >
    > "This threat scans for MS05-039 exploitable systems. When a vulnerable
    > system is found, it uses a buffer overflow to write the worm file to
    > that machine via a TFTP upload on port 8594. Blocking this port via
    > McAfee Desktop Firewall or McAfee Personal Firewall will prevent
    > infection even if the buffer overflow is not prevented."


    The only thing being exploited there is peoples fear. And the ones doing
    the exploiting are McAfee.

    > Few of us have the time or interest to keep up with the details of the
    > several new important bugs discovered nearly every week.


    And some of us, myself being the first one to say so, don't care about
    the details of new "important bugs" discovered. When MS updates the OS,
    I update it. I have no need to try to track it myself.

    > If there were no more bugs, likely hundreds of people working at
    > security companies and Microsoft would be looking for new jobs.


    And as long as that stays true, there will always be people trying to
    keep a job by telling you to buy the product they are selling.

    > I have both my security programs and Microsoft update set to update
    > automatically so that I do not have to check for new updates very often.


    Smart move.

    >You also need to pay attention to the security program icon on your desktop.


    What "security icon"? You mean the one I told the day I got WinXP to
    shut up and let me handle my own PC? I disabled that piece of crap long ago.

    > For example mine is red if it is working and black if it is not.


    Then it should stay black all the time......

    --
    Randy
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
    Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
     
    Randy Webb, Jan 28, 2006
    #9
  10. Noone Here

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    Lee wrote:
    > cwdjrxyz said:
    > >
    > >
    > >Hywel Jenkins wrote:
    > >
    > >> Feel free to go in to some detail about how JavaScript "will cause
    > >> serious problems".

    > >
    > >A very early JS exploit used script to open the Netscape home page in
    > >windows without limit.

    >
    > Very early. What does that have to do with how Javascript "will cause
    > serious problems"?


    A virus that crashes a computer is a serious problem to me, but
    everyone may have a different threshold for what is serious. Of course
    this virus is seldom met anymore. I gave it as an example of a pure JS
    virus rather than a modern one that often mixes several types of code.
    However someone at a software company put it in a code for a free html
    editor, apparently a former employee, as a prank. The software company
    did not bother to remove it for years. Thus many people had their
    antivirus program detect it when they downloaded the program. I believe
    the virus was put in the program in a form that would do no harm,
    except set off virus detection programs. This subject kept coming up in
    NGs for many years.

    Many modern viruses and worms use a combination of various codes, of
    which javascript often is a part, and the problems caused by some of
    these can be quite severe. You can find a huge number of references to
    these on Google at
    http://www.google.com/search?as_q=j...as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

    . If this very long URL fails, just use advanced search, require virus
    or worm, and require javascript. Javascript is very much alive and well
    in many recent bugs.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Jan 28, 2006
    #10
  11. Noone Here

    Randy Webb Guest

    cwdjrxyz said the following on 1/28/2006 3:58 AM:

    <snip>

    > . If this very long URL fails, just use advanced search, require virus
    > or worm, and require javascript. Javascript is very much alive and well
    > in many recent bugs.


    There are 20,500,000 hits for Driving and Virus OR Worm so you better
    stop driving or your computer will get infected! Its true! I read it in
    Google......

    <URL:
    http://www.google.com/search?as_q=driving&num=50&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=virus+worm&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images>

    --
    Randy
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
    Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
     
    Randy Webb, Jan 28, 2006
    #11
  12. Noone Here

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    Randy Webb wrote:
    > cwdjrxyz said the following on 1/28/2006 1:50 AM:
    > > cwdjrxyz wrote:


    > Do you work for a security company or an anti-virus company? It has to
    > be one of the two to come up with the kind of arguments you did (none of
    > which are true).


    No, I do not work for a security or anti-virus company. You are
    entitled to your opinion about what is true. However I suspect that
    many would argue with this conclusion, especially for those who use
    Windows XP without protective programs. I think that even Microsoft
    will suggest protective programs on computers that use Windows OSs, and
    they are not a big player in the security market - at least not yet.
    The XP does provide a one way firewall, and I doubt if Microsoft went
    to the expense to put this in if they did not think it was needed -at
    least for average computer users. If you want a 2 way firewall, you
    have to obtain it elsewhere. Or if you are on broadband and use a
    router with firewall protection, as often is the case, the issue
    concerning a firewall on the computer itself becomes moot.

    > The best defense against being infected? Knowledge. Knowledge of how
    > your computer works (at least a basic understanding) and a basic
    > knowledge of how the web works. Now you can be safe.


    The world is seldom ideal, and people who post to this and other
    technical NGs likely know far more about computers than the average
    computer owner. Also several family members may use the same computer,
    and some may not know much about it. My impression is that many PC
    owners now just consider it as another household appliance, expect it
    to work well out of the box, and are not going to be bothered with much
    upkeep. At least in the US, many computers are replaced when they
    become very slow because of infection with multiple viruses and worms
    or other technical issues, even though they often could be easily fixed
    if the owner did just a little research, or perhaps asked a neighbor
    teen computer geek to take a look.They could care less about how the
    computer works. As long as it does email, allows them to use their bank
    etc, and allows them to order goods, they are happy. Some, especially
    those who live alone, are into chat.

    > Even my mother knows how to keep from getting her computer infected. She
    > has no firewall and no anti-virus program but she has the Knowledge to
    > know how to stay safe.


    I have no idea what OS and browser your mother's computer uses. I have
    know people who have an older Mac who have no protection and are not
    especially careful, but who have never had problems, because there are
    far fewer viruses and worms aimed at these older Macs. However you
    mother has a son who is quite knowledgable about computers :). For all
    I know, your mother could be a computer engineer. However not all
    mothers are especially careful when using a computer or have sons who
    are knowledgable. Of course some mothers think mother-knows-best and
    what you say to them goes in one ear and out the other.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Jan 28, 2006
    #12
  13. "cwdjrxyz" <> writes:

    > XP is a favorite target of hackers


    I never noticed that. Competent hackers even seem to be notoriously
    uninterested; sad, isn't it.

    > Macs have been hacked


    That would be successfully getting rid of HFS+, I believe. *Please*
    share (wherever it would be on topic, surely not here).
     
    Eric B. Bednarz, Jan 29, 2006
    #13
  14. Noone Here

    VK Guest

    Noone Here wrote:
    > AIUI, it was not all that long ago when the threat to personal users,
    > was attachments that when executed compromised machines with keyloggers,
    > trojans, etc.
    >
    > Now it seems that the big problem is reading a webpage or an HTML e-mail
    > and getting affected through the scripting. My understanding is that
    > the script downloads the malicious program from the web and sets it to
    > run on start up through the start-up folder or in the registry.
    >
    > I don't know much about this; can someone suggest a good web site to
    > start learning a bit more about these threats. I have googled, but I am
    > not quire sure of the best search terms, and since there is so much
    > information out there, a site that experienced people endorse would be a
    > lot of help.
    >
    > In particular, it seems as if JavaScript dowloading a trojran without
    > the user clicking an attachment is a big problem.


    Such questions are better to be posted/answered at astalavista.com and
    so.
    Briefly and plainly: JavaScript by itself can do *nothing* to your
    computer because it doesn't provide access to any system resources. The
    best achievement within JavaScript itself would be some
    systemwise-harmless nastiness like:
    while (true) {
    alert("I'm cool hacker Joe!");
    } // :)

    JavaScript though can be used to unitiate host objects with system
    access (DOM / ActiveX / XPConnect). This aspect is really out of
    JavaScript responsability and depends of how wise the relevant object
    have been written. For example IE 6.0 has a by-design hole in one
    module allowing to infect the system in seconds even with *any
    anti-virus software installed*. This hole was finally fixed only in IE
    on XP SP2 or higher. On any lower versions your only protection is do
    not go to any suspitious places. And this exploit also doesn't depend
    on JScript enabled or not - only on <object> activation.

    Does JavaScript / JScript disabled gurantees safe browsing? Not at all.
    If say you're using Windows higher then Win98, you are vulnerable to
    port attacks and you have to have personal firewall installed (or sit
    behind a corporate one). Otherwise you even do not need to launch your
    prowser - Internet connection itself is enough to be infected if your
    computer is found by port spiders.

    Does JavaScript / JScript disabled removes some possible
    vulnerabilities? Yes it does, but only smaller part of them.

    1) Antivirus with regular update subscription
    2) Firewall
    3) All producer recommended updates for your OS
    4) Latest producer recommended version of your preffered browser
    5) A regular cautioness with files received from the Web

    There are some money and efforts required to invest from the *customer
    side* and it is much more (as you can see) than click some "disabled"
    button.

    IMHO
     
    VK, Jan 29, 2006
    #14
  15. Mason Barge wrote:

    > Keeping ports in stealth mode is pretty basic, IMO.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Please get informed about TCP.


    PointedEars
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Jan 29, 2006
    #15
  16. In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > Lee wrote:
    > > cwdjrxyz said:
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >Hywel Jenkins wrote:
    > > >
    > > >> Feel free to go in to some detail about how JavaScript "will cause
    > > >> serious problems".
    > > >
    > > >A very early JS exploit used script to open the Netscape home page in
    > > >windows without limit.

    > >
    > > Very early. What does that have to do with how Javascript "will cause
    > > serious problems"?

    >
    > A virus that crashes a computer is a serious problem to me, but
    > everyone may have a different threshold for what is serious. Of course
    > this virus is seldom met anymore. I gave it as an example of a pure JS
    > virus


    It wasn't a virus, dumb-ass.

    --

    Hywel
    http://kibo.org.uk/
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Jan 29, 2006
    #16
  17. In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > Randy Webb wrote:
    > > cwdjrxyz said the following on 1/28/2006 1:50 AM:
    > > > cwdjrxyz wrote:

    >
    > > Do you work for a security company or an anti-virus company? It has to
    > > be one of the two to come up with the kind of arguments you did (none of
    > > which are true).

    >
    > No, I do not work for a security or anti-virus company. You are
    > entitled to your opinion about what is true. However I suspect that
    > many would argue with this conclusion, especially for those who use
    > Windows XP without protective programs. I think that even Microsoft
    > will suggest protective programs on computers that use Windows OSs, and
    > they are not a big player in the security market - at least not yet.
    > The XP does provide a one way firewall


    It has two-way functionality.


    > > Even my mother knows how to keep from getting her computer infected. She
    > > has no firewall and no anti-virus program but she has the Knowledge to
    > > know how to stay safe.

    >
    > I have no idea what OS and browser your mother's computer uses. I have
    > know people who have an older Mac who have no protection and are not
    > especially careful, but who have never had problems, because there are
    > far fewer viruses and worms aimed at these older Macs.


    Myth.

    --

    Hywel
    http://kibo.org.uk/
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Jan 29, 2006
    #17
  18. Noone Here

    Jeff North Guest

    On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 04:16:04 -0500, in comp.lang.javascript Randy Webb
    <>
    <> wrote:

    >| cwdjrxyz said the following on 1/28/2006 1:50 AM:
    >| > cwdjrxyz wrote:
    >|
    >| <snip>
    >|
    >| Do you work for a security company or an anti-virus company? It has to
    >| be one of the two to come up with the kind of arguments you did (none of
    >| which are true).
    >|
    >| The best defense against being infected? Knowledge. Knowledge of how
    >| your computer works (at least a basic understanding) and a basic
    >| knowledge of how the web works. Now you can be safe.
    >|
    >| Even my mother knows how to keep from getting her computer infected. She
    >| has no firewall and no anti-virus program but she has the Knowledge to
    >| know how to stay safe.


    My experience (take it for what it is worth).
    I have cable connection.
    I was rebuilding my machine after a crash.
    I formatted the hard drive and re-installed the OS.
    I left the cable connection as the setup would've detected this and
    configured it for me.
    After the OS was installed I then installed the AV app.
    It reported 5 virii - all because I had a connection to the internet.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    : Remove your pants to reply
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Jeff North, Jan 29, 2006
    #18
  19. Noone Here

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    Hywel Jenkins wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > >
    > > Randy Webb wrote:
    > > > cwdjrxyz said the following on 1/28/2006 1:50 AM:
    > > > > cwdjrxyz wrote:

    > >
    > > > Do you work for a security company or an anti-virus company? It has to
    > > > be one of the two to come up with the kind of arguments you did (none of
    > > > which are true).

    > >
    > > No, I do not work for a security or anti-virus company. You are
    > > entitled to your opinion about what is true. However I suspect that
    > > many would argue with this conclusion, especially for those who use
    > > Windows XP without protective programs. I think that even Microsoft
    > > will suggest protective programs on computers that use Windows OSs, and
    > > they are not a big player in the security market - at least not yet.

    Y> > The XP does provide a one way firewall
    >
    > It has two-way functionality.


    You may be right, but see
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/security/internet/sp2_wfintro.mspx
    for details about the Microsoft firewall included with the XP, post
    sp2. It makes mention that there firewall can block incoming attempts
    to connect to ports, etc. It does not mention that it will block
    outgoing attempts by your computer to connect to somewhere, which is
    the second leg of a 2 way firewall. On the 2 way firewall I use, I can
    even block a browser so it can not get out. This feature is useful for
    a few programs that do not need to be on the web when you use them. A
    few programs report back various things that some might consider an
    invasion of privacy. I do not use the Microsoft firewall, but rather
    another one that is 2 way, keeps detailed logs of all attempts to
    connect, and allows you to easily trace the source of attempts. Such
    attempts to find open ports happen all of the time from all over the
    world, but especially from a few far Eastern countries.

    It is interesting that Microsoft, in the reference given, also suggests
    use of anti-virus software when using the XP and gives a link to
    considerations for selection of such software.

    Again, you could be right. Microsoft has so many updates for the XP
    that it is difficult to keep track of just what each update does. It
    would not surprise me if they made modifications in their firewall, and
    since I use another firewall, I would never notice such a possible
    change.

    This thread has grown into a rather long, now off topic, monster. This
    sometimes happens over weekends when there are not many questions
    concerning script to answer. Hopefully there will be more posts more
    directly concerned with script soon.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Jan 29, 2006
    #19
  20. In article <>,
    says...
    > On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 04:16:04 -0500, in comp.lang.javascript Randy Webb
    > <>
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >| cwdjrxyz said the following on 1/28/2006 1:50 AM:
    > >| > cwdjrxyz wrote:
    > >|
    > >| <snip>
    > >|
    > >| Do you work for a security company or an anti-virus company? It has to
    > >| be one of the two to come up with the kind of arguments you did (none of
    > >| which are true).
    > >|
    > >| The best defense against being infected? Knowledge. Knowledge of how
    > >| your computer works (at least a basic understanding) and a basic
    > >| knowledge of how the web works. Now you can be safe.
    > >|
    > >| Even my mother knows how to keep from getting her computer infected. She
    > >| has no firewall and no anti-virus program but she has the Knowledge to
    > >| know how to stay safe.

    >
    > My experience (take it for what it is worth).
    > I have cable connection.
    > I was rebuilding my machine after a crash.
    > I formatted the hard drive and re-installed the OS.
    > I left the cable connection as the setup would've detected this and
    > configured it for me.
    > After the OS was installed I then installed the AV app.
    > It reported 5 virii - all because I had a connection to the internet.


    Rubbish. They're false positives, or your set-up is not "authentic".

    --

    Hywel
    http://kibo.org.uk/
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Jan 29, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Stimp

    preventing malicious user input

    Stimp, Sep 14, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    545
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    910
  3. morebeer

    Help - Can't get rid of the malicious Code

    morebeer, Jul 15, 2008, in forum: ASP General
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    288
    Bob Barrows [MVP]
    Jul 18, 2008
  4. Xah Lee

    malicious javascript code

    Xah Lee, Nov 19, 2004, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    120
    Xah Lee
    Nov 19, 2004
  5. Paul E Collins

    Malicious code with limited character set?

    Paul E Collins, Mar 30, 2007, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    136
    shimmyshack
    Mar 30, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page