Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Osama Captured (Possible Virus Hoax)

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Osama Captured (Possible Virus Hoax) (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Osama Captured (Possible Virus Hoax)

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 04-23-2004 01:12 PM

Just posted on the Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMAI) listserver, noting a ploy to have the unsuspecting user link to a suspect website. (Do NOT open the link):

quote:
I found multiple copies of this e-mail in my inbox when I logged on this morning. Since I had already listened to the morning news broadcasts I knew this must be a hoax and did not attempt to click on the link. I presume this is someone's idea of a clever way to get people to link into spam. I thought some of the sex ads I receive were bad, but if this truly is spam it represents a new low in my opinion.

Charles Hopkins
Senior Administrator, Planning and Special Projects
UCLA Film and Television Archive

-----Original Message-----
From: Elbert Nix [mailto:KWESOMGW@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 6:57 AM
To: wkramer@ucla.edu
Subject: Osama Bin Laden Captured

Just got this from CNN Osama Bin Laden has just been captured! A video and some pictures have been released. Goto the link below for pictures, I will update the page with the video as soon as I can:
http://220.95.231.54/pics/badlink God Bless America! (DO NOT OPEN THIS LINK!!!)

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 04-23-2004 02:05 PM

How is this a virus? I got one of these e-mails this morning. I knew it was a hoax, but being that I have a Mac and am completely invunerable, I clicked the link anyway to see what it would link to. It was a teeny tiny ad for Viagra. That's it. No virus.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 04-23-2004 02:11 PM

Maybe that "teeny tiny ad" carried a new virus payload? If you're unlucky, it affects MACs too.

| IP: Logged

Nick Engstrom
Film Handler

Posts: 23
From: USA
Registered: Dec 2003

posted 04-23-2004 02:32 PM

Virii can be imbedded in html now, very rare, but possible.

As well as macs....you mac fanbois crack me up when you say 'we are invulnerable' Thats the biggest load of crap ever...just the other day, they were talking about the latest trojan horse for macs on tech tv. All it takes is time, and people will find holes to get inside your computer.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 04-23-2004 02:42 PM

That trojan horse was supposedly the first Mac OS X virus ever, and it turned out to be a fake. Seriously, I have no virus software running and I have never gotten a virus. What am I doing wrong?

PS -- Who the hell spells "boy" as "boi"? Seriously. What the hell?

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-23-2004 02:57 PM

The issue of security concerning Mac versus PC really must be put into proper context.

The more "religious" fans of the Mac tout the Mac platform's security as evidence of better software programming. Not really. The only reason Mac systems are not harrassed by viruses is the small size of the Mac market. Not enough users to be worth the trouble for malware writers.

That one so-called Mac trojan was never released "into the wild" and was merely an on-paper concept showing a security hole in the MacOS X operating system. Most computer industry experts agree that if the Mac platform held a significantly higher share of the market, say 30% or 40% for example, then there would be A LOT MORE in the way of malware hacks to exploit the Mac.

Another issue that makes Windows a target for malware is all the militant Linux users and their desire to do anything to vandalize and cripple Windows-based machines. Lots of Windows malware is sent into the wild from Linux machines or other UNIX type machines. The game plan is to get Windows users fed up and have them abandon Microsoft and load Linux on their Intel or AMD boxes. Our CPA was trying to convice me to switch our studio's computers to Linux. Just how in the hell am I supposed to emulate two different $4000 programs with hardware dongles under Linux? Huh? I'm not using a platform other than PC or Mac for graphics until ALL my apps are available or fixing to be available under Linux.

But that's never going to happen. Most Linux users don't want to pay for shit. They want it all free. They don't want to support the marketplace. They think anyone working for an established software company should just do their job for free. Maybe they should try doing their own damned jobs for free and try starving on for size.

Adobe tried making a Linux version of FrameMaker and the release was a complete, total failure. Forget about any native Linux versions of Photoshop or any other big Adobe apps. Linux users will just have to stick with emulator programs for those things to run --or try to develop their own free, open source alternatives.

Oh, and since variants of Linux are the most popular choice for web servers, there is a good degree of Linux-based malware floating around in aims to try to steal stuff or vandalize things.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 04-23-2004 03:08 PM

I think Framemaker would be a complete and total failure on ANY platform. I mean come on.... it's Framemaker! I've never even HEARD of it until your post above. Most UNIX users can probably build web pages by hand anyway, and don't need code-destroying programs like Framemaker, Dreamweaver, Frontpage, etc etc etc.

Anyway I am surprised that no virus authors make Mac viruses just to prove it can be done. That would make the news. They wouldn't infect 99% of the market, but they'd at least prove something. On paper is one thing. Actually doing it is another. Going by Bobby's statement, Macs will be safe forever, because they will never have 35% of the market. They are niche machines.

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-23-2004 03:14 PM

Yeah, right! All it takes is one half-assed trojan to appear in THREE YEARS and you have a bunch of Windoze people jumping up and down, pointing fingers saying, "SEE! You get viruses too!" Then, when the thing turns out to be a hoax, they keep harping on it even though they know it's not true. (Or haven't gotten reasonably verifiable proof that it exists.)

I'm not talking about your average "Joe Public". I'm talking about people who are supposed to be serious journalists!

Wanna, know what I spent most of the day doing today? Clearing 236 pieces of spyware and adware off of 6 computers in our offices, scanning them for viruses and installing Windoze updates!

It seems like there is a new virus for Windoze every 0.68 seconds!

| IP: Logged

Kyle McEachern
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 165
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: Feb 2004

posted 04-23-2004 03:23 PM

quote: Nick Engstrom
just the other day, they were talking about the latest trojan horse for macs on tech tv

And here we have a prime example of why watching TechTV is a bad idea. As Joe mentioned, this was the *only* trojan that has ever been reported for OSX, and as Bobby mentioned, it did not infect a SINGLE computer in the world. In the past quarter, Apple shipped about 750,000 Macs, and there's 10 million+ (very low estimate) Macs floating around overalls...and yet, not a single Virus/Trojan has been reported as affecting them. Invulnerable? Probably not...but you should admit that they do have a good point.

quote: Bobby Henderson
That one so-called Mac trojan was never released "into the wild" and was merely an on-paper concept showing a security hole in the MacOS X operating system.

So, to summarize...still no public virii for the Mac. After how long?

quote: Bobby
Most computer industry experts agree...

Seriously, if I had a nickel for every time I heard a load of BS come following those five words...

Regardless, if you HONESTLY believe that the ONLY reason there haven't been ANY trojans for the Mac is that 'they don't have enough of a market share', then you don't understand hackers at all. Mac owners are the BIGGEST proponents of 'Look, this is why you should buy a Mac, we don't get trojans!' -- that's a prime target for a hacker, to bring the high-and-mighty down to their knees. Not only that, but since Mac OS X has come out, Apple's market share has been growing...not massively, but consistently. It's not like they're invisible...but for some reason, still...no trojans! I wouldn't blame the apathy of hackers/trojan-writers.

quote: Bobby
Most Linux users don't want to pay for shit. They want it all free.

That, in and of itself, is...well, total BS. It's not that Linux users don't want to pay for ANYTHING, it's that they're not stupid enough to pay $4,000 for TWO programs. Sure, it took time and effort to create those programs, but you know what? If you make a really good program and sell it for $400 (max), you're still going to make money. If they're going to turn into elitist assholes and try to rip people off for four grand for a piece of damned software, then yes, people are going to complain. You think LINUX users are the only ones who are pissed at companies trying to take 4 grand from them for one piece of software? They don't want it for free, they want it for something that's in the realm of being close to something remotely near being affordable.

Don't rip on people just because you a) can't use their platform or b) don't agree with their viewpoints (Like not enjoying getting screwed with their pants on when they try to buy software)...it doesn't strengthen your point.

| IP: Logged

Floyd Justin Newton
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 559
From: Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 04-23-2004 03:26 PM

Joe-

You don't NEED to know what 'boi' means! If you DO, ask Phil.

[Wink]

fjn
Local294 Ret.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 04-23-2004 03:36 PM

That's what I figured Floyd! I guess we know something new about Nick. [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Mike Olpin
Chop Chop!

Posts: 1852
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 04-23-2004 03:39 PM

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-23-2004 05:16 PM

Joe--Framemaker has nothing to do with web pages. It's actually an industrial-strength publishing product intended for use when putting together books or other large documentation projects. It's considered to be a very good product. It runs on Win32 and various Unix flavors (AIX and Solaris, at least), and probably on Macs as well. It isn't cheap; last I checked, licenses were in the $1000 range, although it uses concurrent licensing, which means that you pay based on the number of copies in use at a particular time, not the number of copies installed.

Did Adobe ever actually sell a Linux version of Framemaker? I know that they had a beta release at one point, but wasn't aware that they actually tried selling it.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 04-23-2004 05:57 PM

Ah. I just looked up Framemaker on Google and saw references to XML and HTML and I figured that's what it was. Maybe I am thinking of Pagemaker? Either way, since I haven't heard of it, it is crap and has no right to exist anywhere. Period.

| IP: Logged

Daryl C. W. O'Shea
Film God

Posts: 3977
From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from)
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 04-23-2004 07:20 PM

Since 1998 Apple has been a lot more responsible in the development of their software. Recently benefitting from the inherent security of a UNIX flavoured backend. However, as the number of UNIX and specifically Linux exploits increase, you WILL see an increase in the number of Macintosh.

Of course you can't be ingnorant of the Macintosh platform of worms and virii of the late 80s and 90s. Sohphos: Search MAC At that time Macintosh exploits were often just as destructive as Microsoft platformed PC exploits, and often rampant on Macintosh based networks.

Again though, Apple put forth great effort to combat this during 1998 and beyond delivering a much more secure platform.

Oddly enough, I recently recieved this Macintosh worm (again), Sophos: AplS/Simpsons-A.

quote: Kyle McEachern
Regardless, if you HONESTLY believe that the ONLY reason there haven't been ANY trojans for the Mac is that 'they don't have enough of a market share', then you don't understand hackers at all.

My studies and research in saftey critical and secure systems leave me to believe that it is more of a numbers game -- who can hit the hardest. The development costs of a Macintosh targetted exploit are also higher, further making the platform a disinteresting target.

quote: Kyle McEachern
That, in and of itself, is...well, total BS. It's not that Linux users don't want to pay for ANYTHING, it's that they're not stupid enough to pay $4,000 for TWO programs. Sure, it took time and effort to create those programs, but you know what? If you make a really good program and sell it for $400 (max), you're still going to make money. If they're going to turn into elitist assholes and try to rip people off for four grand for a piece of damned software, then yes, people are going to complain.

It's not that they are elitest assholes, just that they're not idiots. The very nature of their software makes it a high piracy target in proposion to sales, no matter the sale price. The majority of people simply will not pay for something that they know they don't know how to use as effectively as possible.

If Adobe was to sell their software at a lower price point they would be in imminent danger. So would Autodesk, Loftsman, Kinetix (now a part of Autodesk), Microsoft's server product group, and numerous others. Heck even RedHat, who willingly gave away their products now sell them for upwards of $1500.

The fact is that if the software wasn't bundled with the hardware there's an 80% chance that it was pirated, often out of convenience. Lower price points won't remedy that.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.