The Trackers First Review Response

The following is from a reviewer with the nick name of "Jack"

> THE BEST KEPT SECRETS OF THE COMPUTER UNDERGROUND:
>
> Remember, you heard this from me first. Installing a backdoor for
> future and continued access to your computer system is simple once a
> computer system is compromised. Here are the "Malicious Hackers Best
> Kept Secrets"!

True statement. Once a hacker has compromised your system the typical
goal is to keep the system available for future use. However, this
information is available on the Internet and has been a common practice
for over 20 years.

ME: As a person who was unaware of this, it was a shock. I thought of
the many people as myself who this was happening to. Looked at all the
hacker books written and noticed none approached it from a "basic
computer user" skill level. All books are written by security experts
and written so sophisticated that unless your knowledge was on their
level a person was left out in left field wondering what are these
people talking about. I’ve approached this in a way, simple, tested,
results that anyone can understand. The basic computer user with no
knowledge of these things, a first for them, but something to be
addressed. Learning what the Internet has to offer a basic user isn’t
an easy task to discover. Look at all the basic and simple questions
people ask in Usenet alone.
Well, why haven’t experts written a book and included them with new
computers warning people about hackers and what to do to make your
computer secure. A product is made and sold for money, never telling
people there could be problems, how to approach it and how to prevent
forth coming issues. Money with no thought of people is taken into
consideration; that’s wrong. My concern is the people and how to
prevent these problems. I experienced the shock and pain and decided to
see if I could stop this from happening to others. Anger, frustration
and curiosity helped me write my book.

> They install a Trojan Horse which disables your anti-virus and
> firewall protection; also, they install a second set of their own
> hidden firewall application(s) to protect their Virtual Private
> Network(s). The point that I am trying to make is this, you can check
> your system for a Backdoor, Trojan Horse, Virus, or Worm until your
> blue in the face, you wouldn’t find any. The hackers own firewall
> application(s) can be installed on your hard drive in a hidden folder
> and the only way you would know it’s there is by going to your Control

> Panel, Folder Options, View, Show All Files and Folders (Windows ME
> and earlier).

Typically once a system is compromised, there is little need to install
another backdoor or a trojan that could be detected by AV software. All
AV software will detect known trojans.

ME: If all AV applications can detect known trojans, then how did the
Backdoor Redwood Broker along with six or seven Trojan Horses appear on
my computers while running PC-Cillian and Nortons? My perspective is
this - most Windows users don’t disable a number of services, including
file and print sharing. A hacker comes along and installs a Backdoor
and Trojan Horse, including a Virtual Private Network(s), but the basic
user hasn’t even installed any anti-virus application at this point and
their computer is already hacked/owned. You can’t install anti-virus
applications on a hacked or owned computer and expect them to function
properly and alert you to virus attacks. There was not even a handful
of virus alerts from either PC-Cillian or Nortons which showed any
alerts in 2.5 years. See the firewall log below which derived from the
hackers firewall application. While my systems were running two Virtual
Private Networks, Steve Gibsons site and Securityspace was used to test
for open ports. Securityspace on "one" occasion only revealed port 5000
open while testing for over a six month period. Steve Gibsons site
revealed port 110 opened during the same testing period. The only
application open at the time was Netscape 4.7. This told me that a
hacker was using an e-mail application which was on my computer at
"the time the port scanning was being performed". Out of the "two
years" of port scanning my computer, God decided to pick only these two
moments to help me along the path to discover what
"No One Else In This World Has Discovered".

You don’t go on to explain why this happens, the cause and effect to
users, only that it happens. This is what I’m talking about. The extra
minute it would take to go into a little more detail and testing you’ve
done and what these tests show you. Why can’t a man express a little
more information when responding? It’s got my curiosity going, when
looking at questions posted on the Internet and viewing the male and
female responses.
Proper configuration and operation of a firewall, awareness of the
services running on your computer and other simple best practices for
computer security will eliminate the ability of anyone to compromise
your system to begin with.

ME: My book was written mainly for the basic computer user, not high
tech specialists. My first firewall installed was a free copy of Zone
Alarm. Basic computer users have no reason to be aware of which Window
services are running or to know basic practices for security. In my
possession is a listing of 80,000+ computer victims running a million
different Open Ports, Backdoors and Trojans. Yes, 80,000+! Them words
should speak for themselves. Hell, "France Telecom" had two Networks or
Servers with Backdoors or Trojans on them. I contacted CERT and then
the FBI about this so this company could be notified and hopefully have
them removed. The malicious hackers sure were ****ed at me for
discovering this. Their IP addresses are listed in my book. By using
the free Zone Alarm, it was noticed that you had to leave the "Security"
setting to medium. So what good is a firewall when your computer is
already hacked or owned. Many of the firewall logs from victims are
published in my book.

MOM: I showed my mother your answer and she has only the skills to
operate a basic computers on/off button, icons and she plays a few
games. Jack, I like my computer for my games and your words about
configuration and operation of a firewall are all greek to me. And may
be to thousands of other computer users as well. We like explanations
of what a configuration is, how it works and it’s purpose; the same with
firewalls. People assume too much today, not all of us work on the same
plato. If you do something in a simple way that everyone can
understand, you have accomplished something. Thanks for listening to an
older person who typed on a manual typewriter instead of a keyboard.

Hackers have no need to add additional firewalls to your system. A
firewall is designed to block traffic. Adding another layer that could
prevent access to an already compromised system will only hinder future
use of the system. Running multiple firewalls makes no sense whatsoever.

ME: The additional Blackice firewall proved to me that it was probably
connected to the Virtual Private Network(s). Granted, your answer
should have been correct, but the Blackice firewall on my computer
proved that one firewall was mine and another belonged to a hacker; so
your statement that a firewall blocks traffic and could prevent access
is wrong. It didn’t hinder future use of the system (my book shows
resources used) and they continued to utilize this avenue. I have
actual logs showing this and sorry you have problems understanding my
findings. A few of the logs had other computer IP addresses which
weren’t owned by me. I also ran a copy of Blackice Defender while Zone
Alarm was present on a system. Here is an excerpt from the weirdest
firewall log I’ve ever seen in my life. The date and time changes will
"finally explain to computer users why it’s important for hackers to
continually change these to make tracking hacker activity hard to
accomplish".

## 2001-11-16 04:08:40 8 Filter failed 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0
39 2001-10-29 05:11:24 2003016 RPC TCP port probe 12.31.46.80
65.12.236.49 port=111&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-08-02 00:48:34 2003001 HTTP port probe 128.130.180.4
ESRPC18 63.231.61.20 port=80&reason=Firewalled
59 2001-10-29 09:19:18 2003105 SubSeven port probe 128.193.138.14
138-14.RCN.ORST.EDU 65.12.236.49
port=1243|27374&name=Sub_7_2|Sub_7&reason=RSTsent
39 2001-11-19 08:43:02 2003102 TCP port probe 128.6.18.142
albite.rutgers.edu 65.12.236.49 port=10008&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-11-26 10:26:22 2003102 TCP port probe 130.127.4.234
65.12.236.49 port=515&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-08-04 13:32:18 2003001 HTTP port probe 131.216.23.103
magic.CS.UNLV.EDU 63.231.60.229 port=80&reason=Firewalled
19 2001-10-25 20:18:15 2000101 Trace route 131.252.82.151
host-82-151.dhcp.pdx.edu 65.12.236.49 count=2
39 2001-10-23 12:22:52 2003010 NNTP port probe 132.64.10.90
di8-90.dialin.huji.ac.il 63.231.60.4 port=119&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-10-12 07:32:52 2003102 TCP port probe 137.45.72.91
dhcp-72-91.radford.edu 63.231.59.54 port=1214&reason=RSTsent
39 2001-10-12 12:41:35 2003102 TCP port probe 137.45.72.91
dhcp-72-91.radford.edu 63.231.59.54 port=1214&reason=RSTsent
39 2001-10-23 09:28:48 2003010 NNTP port probe 144.134.75.207
prem-p-144-134-75-207.mega.tmns.net.au 63.231.60.4
port=119&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-10-26 02:04:10 2003016 RPC TCP port probe 144.16.70.193
mgmt.iisc.ernet.in 65.12.236.49 port=111&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-09-21 05:55:29 2003102 TCP port probe 148.244.77.64
ANTONIO 63.231.59.177 port=6346&reason=RSTsent
39 2001-10-23 16:05:18 2003010 NNTP port probe 149.156.87.167 POK
A004 63.231.60.4 port=119&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-11-29 03:51:21 2003006 Telnet port probe 150.244.21.86
orfeo.mat.uam.es 65.12.236.49 port=23&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-10-27 09:06:31 2003102 TCP port probe 151.21.206.59
ppp-59-206.21-151.libero.it 65.12.236.49 port=515&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-08-04 10:59:35 2003001 HTTP port probe 162.33.158.54
BECKS 63.231.60.229 port=80&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-11-29 01:26:22 2003011 DNS TCP port probe 164.125.170.152
65.12.236.49 port=53&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-11-23 23:05:25 2003102 TCP port probe 164.77.208.251
65.12.236.49 port=515&reason=Firewalled
59 2001-11-28 02:10:22 2000103 Possible Smurf attack initiated
169.254.187.17 236.1.0.0
59 2001-11-29 05:39:24 2000103 Possible Smurf attack initiated
169.254.187.17 238.129.0.0
39 2001-09-21 05:58:46 2003102 TCP port probe 172.134.32.150
AC862096.ipt.aol.com 63.231.59.177 port=6346&reason=RSTsent
59 2001-11-09 07:27:35 2003105 SubSeven port probe 172.139.102.53
AC8B6635.ipt.aol.com 65.12.236.49
port=27374&name=Sub_7_2&reason=RSTsent
39 2001-10-31 08:24:25 2003004 FTP port probe 193.251.16.105
ANantes-101-1-5-105.abo.wanadoo.fr 65.12.236.49
port=21&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-10-07 22:35:26 2003004 FTP port probe 193.252.178.71 NEO
63.231.60.130 port=21&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-10-26 03:52:30 2003004 FTP port probe 193.252.186.170
ALyon-101-1-3-170.abo.wanadoo.fr 65.12.236.49
port=21&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-11-28 07:23:06 2003004 FTP port probe 193.253.50.93
AStrasbourg-202-1-1-93.abo.wanadoo.fr 65.12.236.49
port=21&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-08-17 12:59:57 2003016 RPC TCP port probe 194.167.149.172
SERVLINMURET 63.231.61.108 port=111&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-11-22 22:10:29 2003011 DNS TCP port probe 195.12.96.180
mail.akta.kz 65.12.236.49 port=53&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-09-21 05:57:17 2003102 TCP port probe 195.167.106.98
athe530-k098.otenet.gr 63.231.59.177 port=6346&reason=RSTsent
39 2001-09-21 05:58:40 2003502 UDP port probe 195.167.106.98
athe530-k098.otenet.gr 63.231.59.177 port=2786&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-10-29 02:09:19 2003102 TCP port probe 202.102.3.30
65.12.236.49 port=515&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-10-06 11:58:22 2003102 TCP port probe 202.109.246.18
63.231.60.4 port=515&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-10-29 00:26:05 2003011 DNS TCP port probe 202.123.200.236
65.12.236.49 port=53&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-11-24 00:24:50 2003006 Telnet port probe 202.163.226.101
65.12.236.49 port=23&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-11-17 00:08:44 2003102 TCP port probe 202.224.237.147
qsobank.ucom.co.jp 65.12.236.49 port=515&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-10-25 20:38:21 2003016 RPC TCP port probe 202.56.239.194
65.12.236.49 port=111&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-11-11 06:03:43 2003102 TCP port probe 203.168.131.126
ip131126.hkicable.com 65.12.236.49 port=515&reason=Firewalled
39 2001-10-17 09:34:22 2003001 HTTP port probe 203.171.253.65
63.231.61.172 port=80&reason=Firewalled


The method to display hidden files is not limited to ME and below. The
option is also available in Windows 2000, XP and 2003.

ME: All I can say is to give this method a try and anyone with basic
skills will open their eyes to what hackers have installed on their
computer if it’s hacked or owned. You don’t actually think hackers are
going to reveal all their actions out there in the open on your hard
drive, do you? Checking for running processes isn’t going to show you
all the pornography, remailer information and e-mails others are abusing
on your system; to name a few.

> Windows keeps files and folders hidden by default so you don’t make
> changes to their important files. You need to View all Files and
> Folders on your computer to reveal what malicious hackers have
> installed without your knowledge. This will open your eyes and show
> you all the files and software applications now sitting on your hard
> drive. If you want to learn more about computer security, if you’re a
> beginner, one avenue is to read-up on configuring your mail and
> browsing applications. Google and Yahoo also have Newsgroups and
> message boards pertaining to the aforementioned. If utilizing a
> Windows platform, do some reading on configuring your Windows Internet

> Options both Internet and Local Settings. Also, spend time learning
> what applications in Windows are running and on what port they run on.

Displaying all files in a tedious method to determine what processes are
running on your computer. Checking the running processes and identifying
those that are running would prove more beneficial than

ME: See above remarks

The following is from a reviewer with the nick name of "Jack"

The Trackers

tracker

tracker Spilled my beer when they jumped on the table and proclaimed
in <>:

From someone who found the right words:

GENERAL COMPUTER HEALTH WARNING
-------------------------------

Any advice from a poster using the word 'tracker' may contain
dangerous nonsense and should be immediately deleted from your
computer.

Do NOT contact this person by email

Do NOT feed the Trolls, one warning is enough, further messages
only reinforce the desire for attention that provides motivation.

Visit the fan club at:
http://www.sand-n-sea.us/debbiesdrival.htm

Thund3rstruck

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:16:28 +0400, tracker
<"snailmail(removevalid)222000"@yahoo.com> wrote:

>God decided to pick only these two
>moments to help me along the path to discover what
> "No One Else In This World Has Discovered".

God is now telling you to **** off and die.



GENERAL COMPUTER HEALTH WARNING
-------------------------------

Any advice from a poster using the word 'tracker' may contain
dangerous nonsense and should be immediately deleted from your
computer.

Do NOT contact this person by email

Do NOT feed the Trolls, one warning is enough, further messages
only reinforce the desire for attention that provides motivation.

Visit the fan club at:
http://www.sand-n-sea.us/debbiesdrival.htm

--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

Jim Watt

"tracker" <"snailmail(removevalid)222000"@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:...

>
> Typically once a system is compromised, there is little need to install
> another backdoor or a trojan that could be detected by AV software. All
> AV software will detect known trojans.
>
> ME: If all AV applications can detect known trojans, then how did the
> Backdoor Redwood Broker along with six or seven Trojan Horses appear on
> my computers while running PC-Cillian and Nortons?

Simple, you were to stupid to keep them up to date.

> My perspective is
> this - most Windows users don't disable a number of services, including
> file and print sharing. A hacker comes along and installs a Backdoor
> and Trojan Horse, including a Virtual Private Network(s), but the basic
> user hasn't even installed any anti-virus application at this point and
> their computer is already hacked/owned. You can't install anti-virus
> applications on a hacked or owned computer and expect them to function
> properly and alert you to virus attacks. There was not even a handful
> of virus alerts from either PC-Cillian or Nortons which showed any
> alerts in 2.5 years. See the firewall log below which derived from the
> hackers firewall application. While my systems were running two Virtual
> Private Networks, Steve Gibsons site and Securityspace was used to test
> for open ports. Securityspace on "one" occasion only revealed port 5000
> open while testing for over a six month period. Steve Gibsons site
> revealed port 110 opened during the same testing period. The only
> application open at the time was Netscape 4.7. This told me that a
> hacker was using an e-mail application which was on my computer at

Once again you show your ignorance of how ports are used. Port 110 would be
open at the SERVER end not the client end.

> ME: The additional Blackice firewall proved to me that it was probably
> connected to the Virtual Private Network(s). Granted, your answer

VPNs have nothing to do with hackers.

> firewall log I've ever seen in my life. The date and time changes will
> "finally explain to computer users why it's important for hackers to
> continually change these to make tracking hacker activity hard to
> accomplish".

No it doesnt. Changing the date and time is pointless. The 'attacks' are
still showing in the logs. If a hacker wanted to replace your firewall with
their own, they sure as hell would not mess with the date and time in the
log to draw attention to the fact.

Hackers do not leave clues that someone of your limited expertise and
knowledge could easily find.


I'm glad you are back, I was missing your idiotic ramblings. Can't wait for
the next 'review' abd particulary looking forward to your review of my
review! ROFL

Mike

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:25:42 +0100, "Mike" <>
wrote:

>SNIP<
>
>I'm glad you are back, I was missing your idiotic ramblings. Can't wait for
>the next 'review' abd particulary looking forward to your review of my
>review! ROFL
| | | | | | |
( * * )
oOOo-----(_)-----oOOo
| PLEASE DoN'T |
| fEeD, pLonK, |
| OR aNnOY |
| tHe TrOlls |
+--oooO--------Oooo--+
( ) ( )
| ( ) |
(____) (____)

Rob

RCH

tracker <"snailmail(removevalid)222000"@yahoo.com> wrote in
news::

> ME: As a person who was unaware of this, it was a shock. I thought
> of the many people as myself who this was happening to. Looked at all
> the hacker books written and noticed none approached it from a "basic
> computer user" skill level.

This is likely because you weren't looking at basic books. You were
looking at a college-level trig book looking for elementary math.


> All books are written by security experts
> and written so sophisticated that unless your knowledge was on their
> level a person was left out in left field wondering what are these
> people talking about.

True, if you're talking about higher-level discussion. A series called
"For Dummies" proved to me that simple can be quite effective.

> I’ve approached this in a way, simple, tested,
> results that anyone can understand.

If you refer to the text we've seen to date, then what you've written is
not easy to understand. Your thoughts wander from point to point with
no apparent connectivity.

> Learning what the Internet has to offer a basic user isn’t
> an easy task to discover. Look at all the basic and simple questions
> people ask in Usenet alone.

But your book isn't about the wonders of the Internet, it's supposed to
be about computer attacks and security. Don't let your awe confuse your
readers because they may not be awed in quite the same way.

> Well, why haven’t experts written a book and included them with new
> computers warning people about hackers and what to do to make your
> computer secure.

The first reason is because the computer has evolved from a thing used
by geeks and feared by masses to an everyday home appliance. One pays
no more attention to the warning label that comes with their toaster
than they do to any warnings on their computer. Worse, most warnings
and alerts are in electronic form and are not great red tags taped to
the power cord.

I think the second reason is marketing. No one wants to admit that a
user's manual and a set of warnings should be clearly presented to the
new computer owner. Some may think that such a process might scare off
some users: my grandmother wouldn't use a computer until I showed her
how safe and easy it can be.


> A product is made and sold for money, never telling
> people there could be problems, how to approach it and how to prevent
> forth coming issues.

No one bothers to tell you of the potential road hazards when you buy
your first car, either. But consumers seem to understand their
responsibilities when behind the wheel, yet have no concept when at the
keyboard.

> Anger, frustration
> and curiosity helped me write my book.

And you let those traits into your book, which didn't help. One must
write a book of guidance with no bias or emotion. Write the book as you
would teach a child; without wandering off topic or complaining about
some silly ISP and their account policies.

> ME: If all AV applications can detect known trojans, then how did the
> Backdoor Redwood Broker along with six or seven Trojan Horses appear
> on my computers while running PC-Cillian and Nortons?

Because your AV application did not know of the trojan, or the AV
software was not operating (few applications that run in the background
ever tell the operator that they have terminated).

There are several values of AV application, the correct one being
"updated and running." Especially these days, there is no reason not to
update your AV files daily if on broadband, no less often than weekly
otherwise.

> My perspective is
> this - most Windows users don’t disable a number of services,
> including file and print sharing.

Here is a perfect example of wandering. The point was AV programs, and
you've drifted to open ports. AV software would only inspect all
incoming data if told to do so. Since many do not, and because I assume
this is how the trojans made their way in, this may be why your AV
software failed.

But it was not for the failure of the AV software, it was the
vulnerability of an open port.

> A hacker comes along and installs a Backdoor
> and Trojan Horse, including a Virtual Private Network(s), but the
> basic user hasn’t even installed any anti-virus application at this
> point and their computer is already hacked/owned.

How do you know? At what point do you make your assertion? Most
computers sold these days include Windows XP. Included in that package
is usually some sort of AV package. Mine came with McAfee. Before I
put the computer on the net, I have the opportunity to install and
configure not only AV software but the integral firewall.

> There was not even a handful
> of virus alerts from either PC-Cillian or Nortons which showed any
> alerts in 2.5 years.

And in that 2.5 years, how many times did you update your virus
definition files, and how many times did you update your AV engine? If
it's been more than one week for the former and six months for the
latter, then your AV software is too old and incapable of defending
against the newest viruses.

> While my systems were running two
> Virtual Private Networks, Steve Gibsons site and Securityspace was
> used to test for open ports.

Do you have evidence that VPNs were in fact in use and connected? What
was the destination IP address and port?

> Steve Gibsons site revealed port 110 opened during the same testing
> period. The only application open at the time was Netscape 4.7. This
> told me that a hacker was using an e-mail application which was on my
> computer at "the time the port scanning was being performed".

I think this is a misdiagnosis. When a port is open, it means there is a
server of some kind that is listening to that port and ready to respond.
Netscape is a client program, not a server, so it could not have been the
program involved.

This does not mean that port 110 was closed, or that someone was not
using your system at the time. But it does mean Netscape was not the
program in use.

So why was the port open? What program answered to that port? Did you
telnet to your machine on port 110 to find out what answered?

> Out of
> the "two years" of port scanning my computer, God decided to pick only
> these two moments to help me along the path to discover what
> "No One Else In This World Has Discovered".

Getting evangelistic doesn't help your cause. If you were otherwise
blind for two years (lose the quotes, Debbie), and God only saw fit to
give you two examples, why did he allow so many other resources yet
prevent you from viewing them?

> ME: My book was written mainly for the basic computer user, not high
> tech specialists.

I think your book was written for you, and not any particular audience.

> My first firewall installed was a free copy of Zone
> Alarm. Basic computer users have no reason to be aware of which
> Window services are running or to know basic practices for security.
> In my possession is a listing of 80,000+ computer victims running a
> million different Open Ports, Backdoors and Trojans.

How do these three points relate? You drifted so fast I almost lost the
second sentence altogether.

And how did you come to the conclusion that so-called basic users have no
reason to understand how their computer works or what's going on inside?

> Them words should speak for themselves.

But they don't. You assume we all think like you, when no one else does.
You need to think like others to really see what's been shown to you so
you can show others.

> Hell, "France Telecom" had
> two Networks or Servers with Backdoors or Trojans on them.

So what? How does this benefit a basic user who has no reason to know?

> The malicious hackers sure
> were ****ed at me for discovering this.

Anyone who is inconvenienced by those wanting to stop their progression
will be upset at the obstacle. I fight spam all day and plenty of
spammers are ****ed at me. But I don't brag about it, and I'm certainly
not going to include their anger in any book I write.

> Their IP addresses are listed
> in my book.

Their addresses have likely changed by now. Any address you put into a
book will be obsolete before the book is printed.

> By using the free Zone Alarm, it was noticed that you had
> to leave the "Security" setting to medium. So what good is a firewall
> when your computer is already hacked or owned. Many of the firewall
> logs from victims are published in my book.

Well, to state the obvious, it serves little or no purpose to close teh
barn doors after the horses have run off. The point of computer security
is to start with a hardened system. If you start off with the barn door
closed and a good lock installed, the horses will not get out and no
trojan horses will get in.

> ME: The additional Blackice firewall proved to me that it was probably
> connected to the Virtual Private Network(s).

Evidence? You say probably, but you also seem confident that some hacker
is using VPN.

> Granted, your answer
> should have been correct, but the Blackice firewall on my computer
> proved that one firewall was mine and another belonged to a hacker; so
> your statement that a firewall blocks traffic and could prevent access
> is wrong.

What drew you to this conclusion? What is your evidence that some
firewall belonged to a hacker?

And the statement on its own is quite valid. A firewall does block
traffic and can prevent access.

> [firewall log was here]

Apart for the randomness of the datestamp, I see that all the access
attempts appear to be blocked or refused.

> ME: All I can say is to give this method a try and anyone with basic
> skills will open their eyes to what hackers have installed on their
> computer if it’s hacked or owned.

This goes against your earlier statement that a basic user has no reason
to be aware of these things. And no, it won't open their eyes unless
they know what they're looking at. Your implication that something awe-
inspiring will be immediately obvious is wrong.

> You don’t actually think hackers
> are going to reveal all their actions out there in the open on your
> hard drive, do you?

Well, where else do you expect them to store all their toys? The
registry? That's on the hard drive.

> Checking for running processes isn’t going to
> show you all the pornography, remailer information and e-mails others
> are abusing on your system; to name a few.

This depends on how you check for running processes. Yes, if you're
using an obsoleted OS like Windows 98 then one can hide applications from
the apps list. But diving deeper and checking the process tree will show
you all the programs, including the kernel, that are running. For older
systems you may need to use a third-party application to view the process
tree.

> Displaying all files in a tedious method to determine what processes
> are running on your computer. Checking the running processes and
> identifying those that are running would prove more beneficial than
>
> ME: See above remarks

See above dispute. Besides, when a basic user has actually viewed all
his or her hidden and system files, exactly what are they expected to
see? There will be no glowing light, no "The Rabbit is in here!" sign,
nothing that will obviously point the basic user to the malicious file.
That's what working AV software and other malware detectors are for.

n1pop@hotmail.com

Dude quit it..... Stop replying to her it's not worth it. We all know she is
an idiot, but your quickly lumping yourself in that same catagory.

STOP REPLYING TO HER!! She wants the attention your giving her....

DP

splatter

"splatter" <> wrote in message news:<bkpfiv$dil$>...
> your quickly lumping yourself in that same catagory.

Oh, that's cold, dude. I may be a lump, but I've properly medicated today.

Though I must admit I think I make a better looking babe than she does.

n1pop@hotmail.com

<> wrote in message
news: om...
> "splatter" <> wrote in message
news:<bkpfiv$dil$>...
> > your quickly lumping yourself in that same catagory.
>
> Oh, that's cold, dude. I may be a lump, but I've properly medicated
today.
>
> Though I must admit I think I make a better looking babe than she does.

LOL Better life through chemistry I always say. Yeah well that's probably
not hard since Debbie looks like the second place runner up in a hatchet
juggling contest, but hey we all need standards to judge just how bad
everyone else is.

Just please in the future let her comments go.... It's really not worth it.

DP

splatter

splatter wrote:

> LOL Better life through chemistry I always say. Yeah well that's probably
> not hard since Debbie looks like the second place runner up in a hatchet
> juggling contest, but hey we all need standards to judge just how bad
> everyone else is.

You pompous ass. What have this persons' looks got to do with the topic of
this thread, let alone the group ?

Judge this person by their knowledge, or lack thereof, not by the way they
look.

You should leave your 'chemistry' alone, it seems to be affecting your
judgement.

Interlude.

Interlude