Start Office 5, Not OpenOffice
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tzafrir Jun 02, 2006 1:00 AM EDT |
The source for this is a proof of concept macro virus for Star Office 5. This is something I used back in 1999. Version 6 of it, which id the first version with a matching OpenOffice version was much of a rewrite (after it was bought by Sun). This researcher said that it is trivial to extend this approach to attack OpenOffice 2. This should be trivial. Where is, then, the post to Bug-Traq with such an attack? In other words, Kaspersky once again using scare tactics to sell their products. Preveiously we saw that with their "proof of concept" virus for both Linux and windows. Which turned out to be not new at all. Someone should educate the researchers at Kaspersky to use the valuable research tool called google. A quick search found: http://www.virusbtn.com/conference/vb2003/abstracts/srautiai... Anybody has the full text of that one? |
| grouch Jun 02, 2006 7:26 AM EDT |
tzafir: But, there ~have~ to be swarms of malware waiting out there for OOo and GNU/Linux, otherwise the anti-virus companies are *dying*. If they can't find real examples, they must manufacture at least the fear of such things existing. I noticed that Groklaw's News Picks had a summary and link to "Even the Builders of Windows Find Tech Support a Challenge" http://www.itworld.com/Man/2676/nls_solutinons_vista060525/i... wherein: [begin quote] Allchin says Ballmer eventually gave up and instead lugged the machine back to Microsoft's Redmond, Wash. campus. There, several engineers spent several days, burrowing deep into the system to figure out the problem. Imagine, CSI: Redmond. It turns out there were more than a hundred pieces of malware of various types. Things that these engineers using Microsoft's own private tools could not ferret out and fix. Some of these threats hooked themselves deeply into the core operating system and essentially lied about their existence. Other malware scoured the hard drive for anything containing the string "virus," and, in Allchin's words, would "shoot them dead." The result was disabling any installed antivirus software. It took a team of engineers to restore this system to health. And it was a real wake-up call. [end quote] Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but it seems anytime there is something very embarassing to MS in the news, there is shortly some accompanying noise against free software spread around the online news outlets. |
| jdixon Jun 02, 2006 7:57 AM EDT |
Grouch: > Maybe I'm a bit cynical... Surely not. :) |
| tuxchick2 Jun 02, 2006 9:31 AM EDT |
oh grouch, that's just a free, diligent, unbiased press corps working tirelessly to deliver important information. Honestly, sometimes I think you don't like Microsoft. |
| jimf Jun 02, 2006 9:53 AM EDT |
> free, diligent, unbiased press corps working tirelessly to deliver important information Well, they are consistent... Predictable even. :D |
| dcparris Jun 02, 2006 1:00 PM EDT |
> Honestly, sometimes I think you don't like Microsoft. Oh, don't misunderstand. Grouch loooves Microsoft. He might even be a bigger fan than you are. ...ducking low, and running out |
| grouch Jun 02, 2006 5:01 PM EDT |
dcparris: I have just launched a bloodthirsty horde of rabid snails in your direction. If Microsoft and all its products suddenly disappeared, the Internet would hiccup momentarily and then improve, greatly. Some businesses and governments would falter and fumble for a while, but all that money that would no longer be going down a black hole would become available for creating more efficiency and more jobs. If all free software suddenly disappeared, the Internet would cease to function. Microsoft is a drain on the global economy. It sucks down billions in license fees, then continues to suck down billions more due to deliberate incompatibilities, incompetence, maintenance nightmares, recovery from attacks that should not be possible, downtime from the same attacks, lost productivity as people have to continually adjust to suit Bill's way of doing things, lost productivity due to retraining to match the latest versions that are altered only to drive more license fees, expensive license audits, licensing of support software that pretends to fill the holes left by the incompetence of MS, distortion of laws and regulations to suit MS at the expense of everyone else, and the continual suppression of person-to-person assistance such as is found in free software. Microsoft is a cancer eating away at civilized society. Its obsession with secrecy and greed slithers along with its products into every organization which relies upon those products. Its tactics of astroturfing, drip-feed FUD and purchasing deliberately disinformative "research reports" and other propaganda in purported news outlets not only results in such disinformation being repeated as fact, but also creates such an atmosphere of distrust that legitimate reports are also assumed to be someone's propaganda. Its corporate persona, if somehow implanted wholly into a single person would very likely result in that person being institutionalized as criminally insane. No, I can't say I like Microsoft much. In fact, if Messrs. Gates or Ballmer or Allchin or any other officer of that aberrant corporation showed up at my home, I would call the police to have them removed from the premises. (BTW, truth is the perfect defense against a charge of slander or libel and all of derogatory claims I made above, against MS, are supported by publicly available court documents and widely reported news articles). |
| jimf Jun 02, 2006 5:21 PM EDT |
So, why don't you tell us how you really feel about Microsoft grouch. |
| tuxchick2 Jun 02, 2006 5:23 PM EDT |
mmm, escargot. Well said, grouch. |
| dcparris Jun 02, 2006 7:16 PM EDT |
> No, I can't say I like Microsoft much. In fact, if Messrs. Gates or Ballmer or Allchin or any other officer of that aberrant corporation showed up at my home, I would call the police to have them removed from the premises. Well, I *was* going to forward you this invitation from Chairman Billy to join him at his humble abode for a dinner of escargot, but... ;-) |
| grouch Jun 02, 2006 8:01 PM EDT |
Man, that's just -wrong-. You don't eat snails; you train them as guards or ninjas. No one ever expects to be dissolved by an angry horde of snails. |
| dcparris Jun 03, 2006 9:02 AM EDT |
You're right, Grouch. Somehow, it's just difficult for me to picture a snail performing a triple-backwards somersault while simultaneously delivering a karate kick to my big toe. Yeah, that would definitely catch me by surprise. |
| dinotrac Jun 03, 2006 2:23 PM EDT |
dc - Don't be surprised. Local snails have had to toughen up and study up in the martial arts to withstand the Zebra mussel onslaught. They are tough little hombres now. Cross one and your toe will never be the same. |
| jimf Jun 03, 2006 5:20 PM EDT |
Gee, and I thought that killer bees and fire ants were the worst we had to face. |
| grouch Jun 03, 2006 6:40 PM EDT |
jimf: You need to be more diabolical. Everyone recognizes a killer bee or fire ant as hazardous. No one runs from a stampeding snail. |
| dinotrac Jun 03, 2006 7:38 PM EDT |
grouch: >No one runs from a stampeding snail. I think that's right, but it's hard to be sure because you don't have to run very fast to escape a stampeding snail. |
| grouch Jun 03, 2006 7:49 PM EDT |
dinotrac: Witness the slow erosion of the Constitution here in the U.S. It doesn't seem to require due process any more to spy on citizens. Nobody seems particularly disturbed by a president who preaches about "faith-based initiatives". Note the way that slow, drip-feed FUD is allowed to go largely unchallenged. People assume that computers get viruses, and that Microsoft is just another business. We tend to stand still while being attacked by a snail. |
| jimf Jun 03, 2006 8:14 PM EDT |
grouch, Along with killer bees and fire ants, snails don't survive the winters well in this area of the country. I wish I could say the same for Microsoft. |
| dinotrac Jun 04, 2006 5:32 PM EDT |
grouch: Well, I'll admit that slow erosion is a little sneakier than earlier affronts like the New Deal or Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus. Since when, by the way, was due process required to spy on citizens? Seems to me, old J. Edgar never let such a thing get in his way. Oh, I know that Congress passed a couple of laws, but that old separation of powers thing leaves more than a few questions as to their legitimacy. The bigger problem, and one that leads to Constitutional seams being pushed to, if not past, the bursting point, is the general degradation of the political process. Peggy Noonan wrote an interesting piece on that recently: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/ |
| jimf Jun 04, 2006 5:52 PM EDT |
Interesting, and fairly accurate, except for the fear of terrorism part. Most people I know aren't half as afraid of terrorists as they are of the government. The terrorist within as it were. I don't see that any political process is going to fix that. |
| dinotrac Jun 04, 2006 6:16 PM EDT |
jimf - WRT fear of terrorists: I suspect you're right. Too bad, too, especially in light of the recent bust in Toronto. It's a funny thing. I suspect most people felt considerably less safe on September 12 than they did on September 10, 2001. As history shows, however, the danger was bigger on the tenth. I think it's human nature -- try to forget about very scary things over which we seem to have little or no control. May make sense, too. Bad as 9/11 was, 99.999 per-cent of us survived it. |
| grouch Jun 04, 2006 6:40 PM EDT |
dinotrac: Thanks for that link. I share the same feelings as Ms. Noonan expresses in that article; she says it without as much venom, though. ;) >"Since when, by the way, was due process required to spy on citizens?" December 15, 1791, date of ratification of the first ten amendments. Amendment IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It was 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled that wiretaps were searches and in 1972 it ruled, in part: "The freedoms of the Fourth Amendment cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances are conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch without the detached judgment of a neutral magistrate. Pp. 316-318." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vo... As for old J. Edgar, he was about the nearest thing to a secret dictator that this country ever had. |
| dinotrac Jun 04, 2006 7:03 PM EDT |
grouch: The problem with that becomes the definition of spying and the needs of national security. I think you'll find that the President has substantial powers when legitimate nation security interests come to play. Awful as it was, for example, the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was upheld by the Supreme Court. At any rate, I can never resist the opportunity to yank your chain just a little !! ;0) As to J. Edgar, it seems the only thing I might quibble with you on is the word "secret". |
| grouch Jun 04, 2006 9:15 PM EDT |
dinotrac: >"I think you'll find that the President has substantial powers when legitimate nation security interests come to play." That was the focus of the 1972 case that went before the Supreme Court. Nixon claimed he had such powers in the interest of national security. The ruling was unanimous against his view. From at least the 1940s through to 1967, wiretaps were used without court orders. That's the year the Supreme Court ruled that such eavesdropping was a search. The [un]Patriot Act does not trump the Constitution. Dubya nor Congress have the power to overthrow the Bill of Rights. If our current Supreme Court manages to wiggle around to rubber stamp the illegal wiretaps, it will be a very good indicator that we have a rogue government in place. |
| dinotrac Jun 05, 2006 3:32 AM EDT |
grouch: I haven't revisited the Nixon case in a long time, so I'm a bit out on a limb here. I don't recall their saying the President didn't have powers so much as invalidating Nixon's claim -- ie, the power to operate for the preservation of national security cannot be invoked as a blanket shield to cover everything a President does. |
| grouch Jun 05, 2006 4:54 PM EDT |
dinotrac: It's a 34 year old case. That's why I quoted from it above and provided a link to the Supreme Court ruling. The part I quoted is directly relevant to warrantless spying by the president or any other part of the executive branch. A claim of national security does not relieve the government of the requirement to get a warrant from a judge before listening in on private conversations. |
| dinotrac Jun 05, 2006 6:24 PM EDT |
grouch: Go back and read it. You'll see that they allow for significant lattitude in Constitutionally permissible proceduers -- including approaches that do not identify the "precise" targets of surveillance. It also helps to remember the fact scenario of the time: Heavy government surveillance of people involved in anti-war activities. "Domestic security" was a smokescreen for squashing dissent. I don't know if surveillance by the current administration -- which, by the way, neither you nor I know the extent of -- would pass Constituional muster or not. That, old man, is why we have the courts. |
| grouch Jun 06, 2006 5:23 PM EDT |
dinotrac: I did read it, before posting. Your interpretation is unique. |
| dinotrac Jun 06, 2006 6:20 PM EDT |
grouch: Interpretation nothing -- near direct lift from the text of the opinion, especially the bit about precise targets of intelligence. |
| grouch Jun 06, 2006 8:28 PM EDT |
dinotrac: The only use of "precise" in the context you mention is where the Supreme Court was describing the scope of the decision. The paragraph begins: "Moreover, we do not hold that the same type of standards and procedures prescribed by Title III are necessarily applicable to this case." This does not change the holding that electronic, domestic surveillance requires "prior judicial approval". They simply point out that the opinion does not define the "standards and procedures" needed to determine probable cause for domestic surveillance. There is nothing in the opinion that removes the burden of obtaining a warrant. |
| dinotrac Jun 07, 2006 2:39 AM EDT |
A couple of things: How do you define domestic surveillance? For example, is surveillance of a foreign agent on US soil domestic surveillance? Some might say yes, but, technically speaking, it isn't. Is capturing the mass of transmissions without regard to source and filtering them for trip words, etc, domestic surveillance? Don't know. Etc. Er... with regard to language, perhaps you missed this bit in what is euphemistically called the majority opinion: Quoting: We recognize that domestic security surveillance may involve different policy and practical considerations from the surveillance of "ordinary crime." The gathering of security intelligence is often long range and involves the interrelation of various sources and types of information. The exact targets of such surveillance may be more difficult to identify than in surveillance operations against many types of crime specified in Title III. Often, too, the emphasis of domestic intelligence gathering is on the prevention of unlawful activity or the enhancement of the Government's preparedness for some possible future crisis or emergency. Thus, the focus of domestic surveillance may be less precise than that directed against more conventional types of crime. Note -- this is dicta (like lots of other stuff in the opnion), not holding. Holdings cover the facts before the court and dicta tries to flesh out the reasoning. Still, useful. |
| tuxchick2 Jun 07, 2006 9:44 AM EDT |
Anything coming out of the White House I view with the same disbelief as anything that comes out of Ballmergates's mouths. That's why we need transparency and accountability everywhere. Yeah I know's that commie crap. Bad me. |
| jimf Jun 07, 2006 10:46 AM EDT |
> Yeah I know's that commie crap Actually all governments seem to favor the opaque model. |
| grouch Jun 07, 2006 11:36 AM EDT |
dinotrac: >"Er... with regard to language, perhaps you missed this bit in what is euphemistically called the majority opinion:" Er, it would be hard to miss that since it is the paragraph from which I quoted the first sentence. Why do you say, "euphemistically called the majority opinion"? Would you care to point to a single dissenting opinion among the Supreme Court justices? |
| dinotrac Jun 07, 2006 12:09 PM EDT |
Ummm... There were three opinions in the case: the majority opinion and two concurring opinions. A concurring opinion is generally written when a justice agrees with the holding, but may agree only in part or not at all with the reasoning the majority used to get there. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!