Author: Cesar Contreras
Date: 10:15:45 06/02/05
As many of you, i'm tired of this. I think moderators can stop unfounded acusations in order of stoping this. This post it's a response to the next message: http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?429400 Since people continue giving inconclusive evidence that can damage the name of one person, and worse, they claim their evidence it's conclusive. I think it's a must to note that their evidence it's not conclusive. If they had something conclusive since the begining, i was the first to stop responding. Here it's another way (of many) Fafis could take the virus: ------ Begin http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/virusinfo/virus.aspx?id=42909 "Backdoor Functionality The worm can be used as an IRC controlled backdoor, allowing a remote user to gain unauthorized access to the infected machine." "The worm connects to the domian irc.blackcarder.net and joins a particular channel on port 7000. It then waits for instructions from the channel. The worm can be instructed to perform the following actions on the affected machine:" "Download files Download worm updates Execute files Provide information about the worm variant to the remote controller Provide uptime information to the remote controller Provide Windows Version, Ram and CPU of infected machine" -- END So the worm could be updated or a blinder could be downloaded or executed, another program could be downloaded or a person could take control of the machine, or a remote robot could take control of the machine making whatever it is programed to do, the posibilities are many ... It can be that Rafael was making tests with the unpacked EXE file, so there was many time with the .EXE unpacked, then he packed it. There are many posible explanations. Concluding so quickly and worse making it public so soon that Rafael packed the virus it's just nosense. For Chris and Michael: ----------------------- Please, next time your are going to acusse someone here are some steps: First got the whole evidence, then make your conclusions, then ask someone if you are rigth and finally make it public. Your are making the reverse, you first got your conclusions then you make it public and now you are working hard to got the evidence and even if you finally got it (i doub it) your method it's wrong.
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.