Subject: Re: My mistake, looks like I need to clarify something
>From: snipped-for-privacy@tanj.com
>Date: 6/21/2003 10:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <WF8Ja.57007$Fa6.38609@sccrnsc02>
>
>"Woody Qui?ones" snipped-for-privacy@wlqinvestments.com wrote: >> Also
>> these pages are not listed with any search engine.
>>
>
>
>Ooops. Too late now. Google gets a usenet feed, so you are in google's
>search engine.
>
>
>
>BTW, it's far better to use a standard viewer rather than invent your own.
>That way you can direct them to download from a public source. Those of us
>who don't normally use Windows will have a chance of finding a compatible >viewer too.
>
>I was uneasy when I noted that one message was from a different address.
>From: "Woody Quinones" snipped-for-privacy@wlqinvestments.com
>and the other
>From: "Woody Quinones" snipped-for-privacy@strato.net
>
>I'm not sure that these came from the same usenet server normally used >by Woody.
>
>A group like this is perfect for a targeted trojan. After all, just this
>week there was someone asking how to get code books or code software
>on this newsgroup. Why buy it if you can get a locksmith to run an
>executable that starts up a custom backdoor for an enterprising hacker?
>The hacker could then download the code files a dn programs at his >convenience.
>
>The hacker might never get caught, as there would only be a few dozen
>copies of the trojan in existance. Most virus scanners would not
>detect it because, being custom, it will not be in the virus scanner's
>"fingerprint" database. If it does not interfere with the running of
>the computer, most users will not know that it's there.
>
>To avoid detection by "personal firewall" software, the program need
>only access the internet to a strange port when you first run it, thus
>goading you into telling your firewall that it's authorized traffic.
>To save the hacker the need to actually deliver any content via the
>viewer, the program need only display a page of something and then
>provoke a GPF (General Protection Fault). You try it a few times,
>and then give up while muttering about "stupid windows".
>
>So you cvan see why I would not EVER download a program from a private
>party based on a message in a newsgroup. I would download the source
>so that I can check it for bad stuff, but I like to program so that's >not normal.
>
>Daniel
>
>
>
You have a number of good points. I'm sure many who post here have other things of interest on their machines besides code programs too.