Vista - Re: Internet Speed

11-30-2007

"PeterKöhlmann" <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxx-online.de> wrote in message
news:fiovna$6qu$00$2@xxxxxx-online.com...

Quote:

> dennis@xxxxxx wrote:
>

Quote:

>>
>>
>> "Christopher Hunter" <chrisehunter@xxxxxx> wrote in
>> message news:%tO3j.12641$EU1.5571@xxxxxx

Quote:

>>> dennis@xxxxxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> The same also applies to Linux users of course as they can't get an
>>>> infection so its safe to install anything.
>>>
>>> Do you know /all/ about security? No. I thought not. We're all still
>>> waiting to see how you can fake a file with the same MD5 as the real
>>> original.

>>
>> I'm still waiting for you to prove it can't be done.

>
> It simply does not workj that way.
> *You* claim it can be done, all the evidence to the contrary ignored by
> you
> It is *your* part to explain *how* it can be done. Just making some wild,
> competely idiotic speculations which totally disregard reality is
> not "proof"

I said md5 isn't safe.
You don't know what the flaw is so you don't know it is safe.
They said WEP was safe until someone found a flaw and cracked it.

Quote:

>> There are known flaws in md5 and you don't know what they are.

>
> Yes. The known "flaw" is the "collision attack".
> Which can *not be used to generated a file with the same MD5 as the real
> one

Rubbish.
You would have to check the md5 sum on the file couldn't generate a
collision with another file before you could say that.
You can't do that so you can't claim it to be true.
The article I posted showed several small files that were collisions
including one where they deliberately kept the first half the same and
changed the second half till they got a collision. Don't forget that bigger
files like isos are more likely to have collisions that may be exploitable.
It is only a matter of time before someone either gets enough CPU (botnets
anyone) or a better method of doing the attack is found.

Quote:

>

Quote:

>> You cannot tell me it can't be done as you have no way to know.
>> Are you really stupid or are you just going to claim its secure again?

>
> Well, you incredibly stupid cretin (is it really necessary to run Vista
> to
> be as stupid as you are, or were you simply born without any brain?), come
> on then, show us *how* it can be done.

Its you that can't grasp something as simple as a security protocol with a
known flaw is not secure.

Quote:

>

Quote:

>>>> The difference being that the windows infection will be caught when the
>>>> AV
>>>> is updated
>>>
>>> Don't be silly. Many of the most recent Windows infections have new
>>> versions released /every/ /hour/ and many of them use fairly clever
>>> methods
>>> to cripple the already flawed "anti-virus" snake-oil. There are *NO*
>>> "Windows security" programmes that work - or /can/ work.

>>
>> Just as there are none for Linux.

>
> Because AV for linux is not needed, you moron. There are *no* linux
> viruses
> in the wild. None, not a single one
> What AV do you propose for non-existing viruses, you cretinous Vista user?

Well there is always clam.
I wonder why someone wrote AV if it wasn't needed.
I suppose its the same people that write more windows managers.

Quote:

>> If you can't see that then you are not very knowledgeable.

>
> Being "not very knowledgeable" makes anybody highly intelligent compared
> to
> you
>
> < snip more dennis "I am a typical Vista user" lunacy >

11-30-2007	#1 (permalink)
dennis n/a posts	Re: Internet Speed "PeterKöhlmann" <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxx-online.de> wrote in message news:fiovna$6qu$00$2@xxxxxx-online.com... Quote: > dennis@xxxxxx wrote: > Quote: >> >> >> "Christopher Hunter" <chrisehunter@xxxxxx> wrote in >> message news:%tO3j.12641$EU1.5571@xxxxxx Quote: >>> dennis@xxxxxx wrote: >>> >>>> The same also applies to Linux users of course as they can't get an >>>> infection so its safe to install anything. >>> >>> Do you know /all/ about security? No. I thought not. We're all still >>> waiting to see how you can fake a file with the same MD5 as the real >>> original. >> >> I'm still waiting for you to prove it can't be done. > > It simply does not workj that way. > You claim it can be done, all the evidence to the contrary ignored by > you > It is your part to explain how it can be done. Just making some wild, > competely idiotic speculations which totally disregard reality is > not "proof" I said md5 isn't safe. You don't know what the flaw is so you don't know it is safe. They said WEP was safe until someone found a flaw and cracked it. Quote: Quote: >> There are known flaws in md5 and you don't know what they are. > > Yes. The known "flaw" is the "collision attack". > Which can not be used to generated a file with the same MD5 as the real > one Rubbish. You would have to check the md5 sum on the file couldn't generate a collision with another file before you could say that. You can't do that so you can't claim it to be true. The article I posted showed several small files that were collisions including one where they deliberately kept the first half the same and changed the second half till they got a collision. Don't forget that bigger files like isos are more likely to have collisions that may be exploitable. It is only a matter of time before someone either gets enough CPU (botnets anyone) or a better method of doing the attack is found. Quote: > Quote: >> You cannot tell me it can't be done as you have no way to know. >> Are you really stupid or are you just going to claim its secure again? > > Well, you incredibly stupid cretin (is it really necessary to run Vista > to > be as stupid as you are, or were you simply born without any brain?), come > on then, show us how* it can be done. Its you that can't grasp something as simple as a security protocol with a known flaw is not secure. Quote: > Quote: Quote: >>>> The difference being that the windows infection will be caught when the >>>> AV >>>> is updated >>> >>> Don't be silly. Many of the most recent Windows infections have new >>> versions released /every/ /hour/ and many of them use fairly clever >>> methods >>> to cripple the already flawed "anti-virus" snake-oil. There are NO >>> "Windows security" programmes that work - or /can/ work. >> >> Just as there are none for Linux. > > Because AV for linux is not needed, you moron. There are no linux > viruses > in the wild. None, not a single one > What AV do you propose for non-existing viruses, you cretinous Vista user? Well there is always clam. I wonder why someone wrote AV if it wasn't needed. I suppose its the same people that write more windows managers. Quote: Quote: >> If you can't see that then you are not very knowledgeable. > > Being "not very knowledgeable" makes anybody highly intelligent compared > to > you > > < snip more dennis "I am a typical Vista user" lunacy >
My System Specs

Similar Threads
Thread	Forum
(HELP)Low internet speed	Vista networking & sharing
Re: Internet Speed	Vista General
Re: Internet Speed	Vista General
Re: Internet Speed	Vista General
Internet/High Speed Internet Problem	Vista networking & sharing