yeah I can tell you aren't upset or anything ;) It's really not worth all this drama, Erika. Yes, I could have cross-checked my finding with three different browsers and had someone proofread my answer for potential unintended slights to Erika. I did not, not that browsers were the issue (tho the resulting discussion might have the differing definitions of "search", but these were quickly identified without it). Mea culpa tho, hey. It is so not worth getting your blood pressure up over this.
As it was, I told Ian I think you might have a problem, here's an easy way to find out, and since I am mentioning this tool let me mention that it is dangerous in this particular way ::shrug:: then I went on to the rest of my life. As it turns out, as it often turns out in life in fact, we were looking at different data sets. OK. I am mildly entertained by the difference, but don't see why this bothers you. It is true that I spent a lot of time looking at and thinking about internet security and that to a hammer, a lot of things look like a nail. I am sorry if this upsets you and since that's the third time I've apologized for not realizing that dropper trojans were on Erika's list of upsetting topics, yanno? -- what can I say. You seem to be getting more upset if anything so I will wander off now. Ian, if you are reading this, perhaps you should send any updates to me directly if you send them. thanks. On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Erika L. Rich <elr...@ruwebby.com> wrote: > > Look. > > The ONLY point I was trying to make is that his browser was NOT hijacked > like you said it could be because his results didnt match your results. > > You went off on a tangent about security and hijacking and do this and do > that. FINE for after the fact in case when he clicked on the link that > something bad happened.... BUT THAT WASNT THE REASON FOR THE POST!!!! > > *I* replied and said it was hijacking, that my system was clean and that > the > results were the product of Black Hat spammers. You chose to go on again > about scanning and security etc.... > > COMPLETELY disregarding anything any of us had to say about the results > actually being correct. > > Got it?! > Had fecking nothing to do with sensitivity or any such thing. > Got it? > > Just fed up with *hijacking* thread or otherwise. > > All I did was tell you his results were legit. > > Period. > > Gah! > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > by the way, Ian, I would be interested in hearing any followup you have > on > > this. Lest Erika think I think you're stupid, I'll just mention that I > > dealt with one of the early versions of that trojans at a former job > site, > > and at the time serveral anti-virus softwares were not detecting it. Work > > put me in charge of hunting it down and quite the education in social > > engineering *that* was :) > > > > Anyway.. professional interest ;) > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:303274 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
