|
|
First 64-bit AMD64 Windows virus emerges
http://www.eet.com/semi/news/showArt...cleId=30900082
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18085 -- Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-) |
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:42:07 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote:
http://www.eet.com/semi/news/showArt...cleId=30900082 http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18085 Just another reason I don't use Windows.;-) -- Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB) http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm |
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message able.rogers.com... http://www.eet.com/semi/news/showArt...cleId=30900082 http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18085 -- Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-) quote The wire quotes Symantec as saying the proof of concept virus exists just to show that iAMD64 machines are as vulnerable as any other computer platform. /quote Well duh, DEP isn't the virus cure all. It just helps protect you against certain kinds of buffer attacks... Carlo |
does that make you feel special?
thanks for sharing, idiot "Wes Newell" wrote in message news:pan.2004.08.26.00.32.54.541443@TAKEOUTverizon .net... On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:42:07 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote: http://www.eet.com/semi/news/showArt...cleId=30900082 http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18085 Just another reason I don't use Windows.;-) -- Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB) http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm |
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:04:44 +0000, Jamco wrote:
"Wes Newell" wrote in message news:pan.2004.08.26.00.32.54.541443@TAKEOUTverizon .net... On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:42:07 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote: http://www.eet.com/semi/news/showArt...cleId=30900082 http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18085 Just another reason I don't use Windows.;-) does that make you feel special? thanks for sharing, idiot Fixed morons top post and failure to remove old sig line.. Now to the point... Get ****ed you stupid SOB. And that Son of a Bitch in case you can't inderstand it you ****ing asshole. -- Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB) http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm |
"Jamco" top posted:
does that make you feel special? thanks for sharing, idiot Said the stupid top poster. |
"Jamco" wrote in message news:06mXc.11894$A8.8328@edtnps89... does that make you feel special? thanks for sharing, idiot "Wes Newell" wrote in message news:pan.2004.08.26.00.32.54.541443@TAKEOUTverizon .net... On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:42:07 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote: http://www.eet.com/semi/news/showArt...cleId=30900082 http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18085 Just another reason I don't use Windows.;-) -- Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB) http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm Well that post that Wes Newell has done what you can`t do or understand. It has informed people that even the AMD64 Cpu`s are not infallible when it comes to virus`s and trojans. I found the links very informative as i am sure other people have done also. He has helped people to accertain what the information is about Virii and the AMD64 platform. What have you done but inform everyone what a plonker you are by top posting and telling the poster in no incertain words that he is a idiot for doing it. |
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:21:10 +0000 (UTC), "flossie"
wrote: Well that post that Wes Newell has done what you can`t do or understand. It has informed people that even the AMD64 Cpu`s are not infallible when it comes to virus`s and trojans. I found the links very informative as i am sure other people have done also. He has helped people to accertain what the information is about Virii and the AMD64 platform. I don't think that anyone who know what was going on here ever doubted that the AMD64 platform was still very much vulnerable to viruses. However AMD's marketing department definitely needs this sort of smacking upside the head for the sheer audacity of them calling their no-execute bit "Virus protection" in the first place. That was a flat out lie and it's good that they are being called on it. That being said, it is a much needed feature that should have been implemented ages ago (and implemented properly like AMD has done, not the odd-ball segment protection scheme that Intel designed and absolutely nobody used). It will help protect systems from certain buffer overruns and remote exploits which, IMO, are a MUCH more serious cause for concern than viruses. Viruses are *EXTREMELY* easy to avoid if you know anything about how they work, but remotely exploitable flaws in code are WAY more difficult to avoid (basically impossible to avoid when the exploit is previously unknown and in some server code that you need to be accessible from the internet). ------------- Tony Hill hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca |
Never anonymous Bud's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged
through his body we Viruses target OPERATING SYSTEMS and programs, not CPUs. No, but this was tailored to run only on AMD64's |
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 05:05:12 +0000, Hellmark wrote:
Never anonymous Bud's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his body we Viruses target OPERATING SYSTEMS and programs, not CPUs. No, but this was tailored to run only on AMD64's And what other CPU's currently run the AMD 64bit codes? :-) -- Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB) http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HardwareBanter.com