https://get.eftsure.com.au/statistics/malware-statistics/

An unprotected computer is likely to be attacked within an hour after
connection to the Internet.

It is estimated that the average time between the exposure of a
vulnerability and the creation of an exploit is 6.8 days. This means
that an unprotected computer is likely to be attacked within an hour
after being connected to the Internet.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I've seen this crap posted for about two decades.

I and my wife have had no AV program or other so-called "Security
Suite" on our computers for about four years. I, and her, have yet to
have any strange messages alerting/threatening us in malware fashion.
All we have on our computers is - as I said before - a sandbox/restore
type program called Time Freeze.

Yes, any malware would get dumped without us knowing it, but chances
are that we would have come across some nonsense alerts or threats
before rebooting.

For these idiots to keep saying that computers are infected within an
hour, or days, is total fabrication. To get infected the user has to
'do' something to cause it. Anyway, there are too many if-and-buts
about getting infected, but these doomsday idiots are just out and out
liars.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:32:16 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
<nobody@dizum.com> wrote:

>https://get.eftsure.com.au/statistics/malware-statistics/
>
>An unprotected computer is likely to be attacked within an hour after
>connection to the Internet.
>
>It is estimated that the average time between the exposure of a
>vulnerability and the creation of an exploit is 6.8 days. This means
>that an unprotected computer is likely to be attacked within an hour
>after being connected to the Internet.
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>I've seen this crap posted for about two decades.
>
>I and my wife have had no AV program or other so-called "Security
>Suite" on our computers for about four years. I, and her, have yet to
>have any strange messages alerting/threatening us in malware fashion.
>All we have on our computers is - as I said before - a sandbox/restore
>type program called Time Freeze.
>
>Yes, any malware would get dumped without us knowing it, but chances
>are that we would have come across some nonsense alerts or threats
>before rebooting.
>
>For these idiots to keep saying that computers are infected within an
>hour, or days, is total fabrication. To get infected the user has to
>'do' something to cause it. Anyway, there are too many if-and-buts
>about getting infected, but these doomsday idiots are just out and out
>liars.

You and I don't always agree about everything, but we agree about
that.

On 2022-11-13, Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
> https://get.eftsure.com.au/statistics/malware-statistics/
>
> An unprotected computer is likely to be attacked within an hour after
> connection to the Internet.
>
> It is estimated that the average time between the exposure of a
> vulnerability and the creation of an exploit is 6.8 days. This means
> that an unprotected computer is likely to be attacked within an hour
> after being connected to the Internet.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> I've seen this crap posted for about two decades.

It probably refers to a computer connected directly to a public IPV4
address, not sitting behind a NAT router or external firewall.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:32:16 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio wrote:

Just wondering -- how many dozen threads are you planning to start
for what is essentially all one issue?

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On 11/12/2022 11:32 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> https://get.eftsure.com.au/statistics/malware-statistics/
>
> An unprotected computer is likely to be attacked within an hour after
> connection to the Internet.
>
> It is estimated that the average time between the exposure of a
> vulnerability and the creation of an exploit is 6.8 days. This means
> that an unprotected computer is likely to be attacked within an hour
> after being connected to the Internet.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> I've seen this crap posted for about two decades.
>
> I and my wife have had no AV program or other so-called "Security
> Suite" on our computers for about four years. I, and her, have yet to
> have any strange messages alerting/threatening us in malware fashion.
> All we have on our computers is - as I said before - a sandbox/restore
> type program called Time Freeze.
>
> Yes, any malware would get dumped without us knowing it, but chances
> are that we would have come across some nonsense alerts or threats
> before rebooting.
>
> For these idiots to keep saying that computers are infected within an
> hour, or days, is total fabrication. To get infected the user has to
> 'do' something to cause it. Anyway, there are too many if-and-buts
> about getting infected, but these doomsday idiots are just out and out
> liars.
>

My PC was once infected with a virus. Fixing it involved completely
wiping the hard drives, reinstalling Windows and Office, and then
reinstalling some 20 other applications. Fortunately, I had a backup of
my data. I also had an archive of the installer files for the
applications.

Since then, I have three different anti-malware applications installed.
Only one operates continuously in the background; it updates its virus
definitions automatically. I use it and the two others to scan
installer files of application updates and new applications; first I
manually update the virus definitions in the two that are not running.
Occasionally, the anti-malware application running in the background
alerts me to an E-mail message containing a virus.

--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Beyond Meat and other such vegetarian meat substitutes
represent the ultimate in ultra-processed foods. Real
meat is natural. Beyond Meat is definitely not.

So what protection brands do you have installed ?

On 13 Nov 2022, Roger Blake wrote
(in article<20221113151145@news.eternal-september.org>):

> On 2022-11-13, Nomen Nescio<nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
> > https://get.eftsure.com.au/statistics/malware-statistics/
> >
> > An unprotected computer is likely to be attacked within an hour after
> > connection to the Internet.
> >
> > It is estimated that the average time between the exposure of a
> > vulnerability and the creation of an exploit is 6.8 days. This means
> > that an unprotected computer is likely to be attacked within an hour
> > after being connected to the Internet.
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > I've seen this crap posted for about two decades.
>
> It probably refers to a computer connected directly to a public IPV4
> address, not sitting behind a NAT router or external firewall.

A machine using IPv4 behind NAT and/or a firewall is usually fairly safe,
unless the user does something stupid. A machine using IPv6, or IPv4 but not
behind NAT and/or a firewall, is likely to have a problem. I’ve seen
attempts to access computers hit my network. They don’t get past the
firewall, at least not so far. The attempts appear to be automated, and
looking for open ports and Windows boxes. The firewall isn’t on a Windows
box.

I have reduced the chances for users to be stupid. Particularly vulnerable
machines, such as WinXP systems, and on a second, walled-off, network, and
don’t have any Internet tools (except Internet Explorer on the XP machines,
it’s hard to remove it. I have made it difficult for users to use it,
though. And there’s a big sign indicating that it’s a termination offense
to connect to the Internet from those units. I have had one guy who didn’t
take that seriously fired. We must have XP to run certain ancient hardware
and software. We are in the process of getting rid of the very old stuff,
replacing them with items which can be used from Macs and Ubuntu. Once
complete, the XP machines will be retired. The sign will stay. I’ll still
fire anyone stupid enough to go on the Internet from a machine used to
control $100,000+ hardware.

On 11/13/2022 10:12 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2022-11-13, Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>> https://get.eftsure.com.au/statistics/malware-statistics/
>>
>> An unprotected computer is likely to be attacked within an hour after
>> connection to the Internet.
>>
>> It is estimated that the average time between the exposure of a
>> vulnerability and the creation of an exploit is 6.8 days. This means
>> that an unprotected computer is likely to be attacked within an hour
>> after being connected to the Internet.
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> I've seen this crap posted for about two decades.
>
> It probably refers to a computer connected directly to a public IPV4
> address, not sitting behind a NAT router or external firewall.

We can't really say "this is good", but it's
better than nothing. Many routers have exploits
available on the WAN side, which is why I can't
bless this as being a "best practice" or anything.
Roughly 100 routers share the same third party firmware
(a company makes firmware), and any time that firmware
has a bug, a large portion of the Internet is exposed.

At least one cheesy router, still had the evaluation firmware
in it, that says "this firmware not to be resold" on the screen.
That's how bad a router can be. That particular router,
you could log in with a known password *from the WAN side*.

IPV4 NAT
modem -- router ------
------
------
------ Computer

Versus the more exposed (this is bad)

modem -- computer

where the computer terminates PPPOE itself. You can take a
combo modem-router box and set the router to "bridged mode"
to make it into a modem only, like in the diagram. (My
modem-router is set to bridged mode as I type, but is
followed by a separate router box that does the actual routing.)

And yes, in these very groups, there are individuals
running the second configuration.

If your IPV4 NAT router has "stateful packet inspection",
that helps a tiny bit. It checks the packets on a particular port
number, for sequence number. As a check that something spoofed has
not been sent.

Shodan scans the Internet once a week. And no, it's not
the only scanner. Shodan is a kind of warning to "not be
stupid on the Internet". People with botnets also run scanners.
They could sell what they find, to the highest bidder
for example. "Timmys list of WinXP SMBV1 machines $9.95" :-)

Did I mention it would be particularly bad to connect a
WinXP machine to the modem ? I don't know the name of the
exploit, but I think there is one for that. And no, it's
not a function of whether you enabled file sharing on D:
or something. It's a liability even if you do no file sharing
whatsoever. The reason a machine could be unpatched, is
because *Windows Update will not install the patch* . FFS.

modem -- unpatched_WinXP_SMBV1 # "Wheee"

Paul

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 15:12:49 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
<rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:

>On 2022-11-13, Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>> https://get.eftsure.com.au/statistics/malware-statistics/
>>
>> An unprotected computer is likely to be attacked within an hour after
>> connection to the Internet.
>>
>> It is estimated that the average time between the exposure of a
>> vulnerability and the creation of an exploit is 6.8 days. This means
>> that an unprotected computer is likely to be attacked within an hour
>> after being connected to the Internet.
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> I've seen this crap posted for about two decades.
>
>It probably refers to a computer connected directly to a public IPV4
>address, not sitting behind a NAT router or external firewall.

It makes no such distinction. Read the statement again.

I, too, have come across this bullcrap for years.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 07:44:06 -0800, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:32:16 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>Just wondering -- how many dozen threads are you planning to start
>for what is essentially all one issue?

Don't start fights were they are not necessary. Kill file the poster
if you don't care to read him/her.

On 11/13/2022 10:12 AM, Lyle wrote:
> So what protection brands do you have installed ?
>

In alphabetical order:
AVG AntiVirus
Malwarebytes
Windows Security Essentials

No, I will not disclose which one is always running in the background.

Also, I have set some additional entries in my router's firewall and
entries at my ISP's POP3 server filter for my E-mail accounts. While
the router settings are entirely to block malware, the POP3 filter
settings block sources of both annoyances and potential malware.

--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Beyond Meat and other such vegetarian meat substitutes
represent the ultimate in ultra-processed foods. Real
meat is natural. Beyond Meat is definitely not.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 10:12:32 -0800, Lyle <Lylei@Lyle.com> wrote:

>So what protection brands do you have installed ?

Who are you responding to?

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 14:32:13 -0600, Harlan@simulated_addy.com wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 07:44:06 -0800, Stan Brown
> <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:32:16 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >
> >Just wondering -- how many dozen threads are you planning to start
> >for what is essentially all one issue?
>
> Don't start fights were they are not necessary. Kill file the poster
> if you don't care to read him/her.

Who said I didn't care to read him/her? I'm just tired of the endless
philippics against antivirus programs. And I'm complaining precisely
_because_ creating all those threads breaks killfiling.

Anyhow, your suggestion to killfile the poster is worthless, because
I'd still see all the responses to those threads.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 14:08:36 -0800, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 14:32:13 -0600, Harlan@simulated_addy.com wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 07:44:06 -0800, Stan Brown
>> <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:32:16 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> >
>> >Just wondering -- how many dozen threads are you planning to start
>> >for what is essentially all one issue?
>>
>> Don't start fights were they are not necessary. Kill file the poster
>> if you don't care to read him/her.
>
>Who said I didn't care to read him/her? I'm just tired of the endless
>philippics against antivirus programs. And I'm complaining precisely
>_because_ creating all those threads breaks killfiling.
>
>Anyhow, your suggestion to killfile the poster is worthless, because
>I'd still see all the responses to those threads.

Killfile the Subject and you won't see the threads anymore.

In article <tkr8r5$1aj2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
"David E. Ross" <nobody@notme.invalid> wrote:
>
> On 11/12/2022 11:32 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> > https://get.eftsure.com.au/statistics/malware-statistics/
> >
> > An unprotected computer is likely to be attacked within an hour after
> > connection to the Internet.
> >
> > It is estimated that the average time between the exposure of a
> > vulnerability and the creation of an exploit is 6.8 days. This means
> > that an unprotected computer is likely to be attacked within an hour
> > after being connected to the Internet.
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > I've seen this crap posted for about two decades.
> >
> > I and my wife have had no AV program or other so-called "Security
> > Suite" on our computers for about four years. I, and her, have yet to
> > have any strange messages alerting/threatening us in malware fashion.
> > All we have on our computers is - as I said before - a sandbox/restore
> > type program called Time Freeze.
> >
> > Yes, any malware would get dumped without us knowing it, but chances
> > are that we would have come across some nonsense alerts or threats
> > before rebooting.
> >
> > For these idiots to keep saying that computers are infected within an
> > hour, or days, is total fabrication. To get infected the user has to
> > 'do' something to cause it. Anyway, there are too many if-and-buts
> > about getting infected, but these doomsday idiots are just out and out
> > liars.
> >
>
> My PC was once infected with a virus. Fixing it involved completely
> wiping the hard drives, reinstalling Windows and Office, and then
> reinstalling some 20 other applications. Fortunately, I had a backup of
> my data. I also had an archive of the installer files for the
> applications.

Exactly!

I have images of my C: system and files copied to another two
external HD drives with Acronis TrueImage. Extra external drives are
cheap. You don't need the expensive drives of two or more TBs to back
up average C: partition. Usually, one of about 250 to 500 GBs is
fine.
I also save the installer files for my the programs on my C: drive.

Why people don't do this simple backup stuff is total denial. The
bad stuff simply doesn't happen to them - until it does.

Losing programs is one thing. Losing years of info and data is
simply intolerable and most often due to denial and laziness.

I should add that my thousands of music and video files are all on
external drives. I have the main drive backed up to two others. I
absolutely cannot-will not lose my music. If C: gets screwed,
they're safe.

> Since then, I have three different anti-malware applications installed.
> Only one operates continuously in the background; it updates its virus
> definitions automatically. I use it and the two others to scan
> installer files of application updates and new applications; first I
> manually update the virus definitions in the two that are not running.
> Occasionally, the anti-malware application running in the background
> alerts me to an E-mail message containing a virus.

E-mails are one of the main avenues of infection. I use only offline
e-mail accounts. I never download any of my e-mails. If there are
receipts for services or products purchased online, I copy-paste from
the online originals. It's just something I've done forever. And
let me add, the one factor that can screw you over big time with e-
mail is Curiosity. If you aren't sure what it's about or wondering
about the source which *might* be legitimate, DON'T open it. Get rid
of it.

One last trick I use is that after getting a legitimate receipt from
a company, I blacklist them. They stay blacklisted until I again do
business with them and await another receipt. This keeps me from
getting infected by any bad stuff they might have been infected with.
Plus, it screws up some hacker who tries to fool me pretending to be
the company.

I'm paranoid, I guess. I got stung really, really bad many, many
years ago. It isn't going to happen again.

> --
> David E. Ross
> <http://www.rossde.com/>
>
> Beyond Meat and other such vegetarian meat substitutes
> represent the ultimate in ultra-processed foods. Real
> meat is natural. Beyond Meat is definitely not.

Today's meat in America is crap. After they get through with the
genetic changes and chemical junk added - along with bloating it with
water, meat is hardly edible any longer. Did I mention how years
back the crooks in government allowed the meat packer crooks to move
up the lower grades to a higher grade?

One half of a chicken breast today is bigger than an entire damn
chicken used to be decades back - and it chews like bubble gum.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 13:30:33 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

>On 11/13/2022 10:12 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
>> On 2022-11-13, Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>>> https://get.eftsure.com.au/statistics/malware-statistics/
>>>
>>> An unprotected computer is likely to be attacked within an hour after
>>> connection to the Internet.
>>>
>>> It is estimated that the average time between the exposure of a
>>> vulnerability and the creation of an exploit is 6.8 days. This means
>>> that an unprotected computer is likely to be attacked within an hour
>>> after being connected to the Internet.
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> I've seen this crap posted for about two decades.
>>
>> It probably refers to a computer connected directly to a public IPV4
>> address, not sitting behind a NAT router or external firewall.
>
>We can't really say "this is good", but it's
>better than nothing. Many routers have exploits
>available on the WAN side, which is why I can't
>bless this as being a "best practice" or anything.
>Roughly 100 routers share the same third party firmware
>(a company makes firmware), and any time that firmware
>has a bug, a large portion of the Internet is exposed.
>
>At least one cheesy router, still had the evaluation firmware
>in it, that says "this firmware not to be resold" on the screen.
>That's how bad a router can be. That particular router,
>you could log in with a known password *from the WAN side*.
>
> IPV4 NAT
> modem -- router ------
> ------
> ------
> ------ Computer
>
>Versus the more exposed (this is bad)
>
> modem -- computer
>
>where the computer terminates PPPOE itself.
<snip>

Do you guys still have PPPOE up there? I haven't seen it anywhere near
me since about 1994, and that was with dial-up on Win 3.x.

On 11/13/2022 5:56 PM, Char Jackson wrote:

> Do you guys still have PPPOE up there? I haven't seen it anywhere near
> me since about 1994, and that was with dial-up on Win 3.x.
>

Plain PPP is for dial-up modems.

PPPOE is for PPP protocol over Ethernet.

PPPOA is for PPP protocol using 53-byte ATM packets.

Since there are several flavors of broadband offered
by the phone company, this is not a comprehensive review
of what's done. For example, a month ago, they seem to
have started pulling fiber on some of the properties
on my street (something I never expected to see). And
I don't know what encapsulation scheme is used for that.
There is fiber, VDSL2, and ADSL2 from the phone company.
The top fiber package is 1.5Gbit/sec. None of the trucks
and equipment were properly labeled to tell what they
were doing. One of the trucks said "Water", and no,
that's not water pipes they were installing.

Maybe the cable uses CG-NAT, but I have no experience
with cable here at all.

Previously I bought my service from the phone company,
but we had to part ways as they were rat bastards. Like,
I had to wait *ten years* here, for legislated number
portability to work. So I could pull my phone number
to a new service.

Paul

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 20:34:53 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

>On 11/13/2022 5:56 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
>
>> Do you guys still have PPPOE up there? I haven't seen it anywhere near
>> me since about 1994, and that was with dial-up on Win 3.x.
>>
>
>Plain PPP is for dial-up modems.
>
>PPPOE is for PPP protocol over Ethernet.
>
>PPPOA is for PPP protocol using 53-byte ATM packets.

Good catch, so PPP was last seen in 1994 and PPPOE was last seen in 2002
on the mobile data network where I worked at the time, not visible to
the end user. I guess I've never seen PPPOE in a residential setting, so
I'm back to my original question. Do you guys (still) use it?

>Since there are several flavors of broadband offered
>by the phone company, this is not a comprehensive review
>of what's done. For example, a month ago, they seem to
>have started pulling fiber on some of the properties
>on my street (something I never expected to see). And
>I don't know what encapsulation scheme is used for that.
>There is fiber, VDSL2, and ADSL2 from the phone company.
>The top fiber package is 1.5Gbit/sec.

I'm on entry-level fiber here, which is 400mb up/down. I don't really
need anything faster at the moment.

>None of the trucks
>and equipment were properly labeled to tell what they
>were doing. One of the trucks said "Water", and no,
>that's not water pipes they were installing.
>
>Maybe the cable uses CG-NAT, but I have no experience
>with cable here at all.

I'd be surprised to see a cable company use CG-NAT, but it's possible.

>Previously I bought my service from the phone company,
>but we had to part ways as they were rat bastards. Like,
>I had to wait *ten years* here, for legislated number
>portability to work. So I could pull my phone number
>to a new service.

Phone companies have a bad reputation.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:32:16 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio wrote:

> For these idiots to keep saying that computers are infected within
> an hour, or days, is total fabrication. To get infected the user
> has to 'do' something to cause it.

No.
https://twitter.com/hackerfantastic/status/863463492090818561

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 16:23:08 -0600, Harlan@simulated_addy.com wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 14:08:36 -0800, Stan Brown
> <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 14:32:13 -0600, Harlan@simulated_addy.com wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 07:44:06 -0800, Stan Brown
> >> <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:32:16 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Just wondering -- how many dozen threads are you planning to start
> >> >for what is essentially all one issue?
> >>
> >> Don't start fights were they are not necessary. Kill file the poster
> >> if you don't care to read him/her.
> >
> >Who said I didn't care to read him/her? I'm just tired of the endless
> >philippics against antivirus programs. And I'm complaining precisely
> >_because_ creating all those threads breaks killfiling.
> >
> >Anyhow, your suggestion to killfile the poster is worthless, because
> >I'd still see all the responses to those threads.
>
> Killfile the Subject and you won't see the threads anymore.

No, killfiling the subject I won't see that _one_ thread any more.

That's why it's wrong to post multiple threads on a single subject:
it makes killing a thread ineffective.

Do you really not understand this? I'm dubious.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 14:15:55 +0000, mechanic <mechanic@example.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:32:16 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>> For these idiots to keep saying that computers are infected within
>> an hour, or days, is total fabrication. To get infected the user
>> has to 'do' something to cause it.
>
>No.
>https://twitter.com/hackerfantastic/status/863463492090818561

More total bullshit which doesn't explain a thing about the real cause
of the problem. Twitter is now source of reliable info? Ha!

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 07:18:25 -0800, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 16:23:08 -0600, Harlan@simulated_addy.com wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 14:08:36 -0800, Stan Brown
>> <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 14:32:13 -0600, Harlan@simulated_addy.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 07:44:06 -0800, Stan Brown
>> >> <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:32:16 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Just wondering -- how many dozen threads are you planning to start
>> >> >for what is essentially all one issue?
>> >>
>> >> Don't start fights were they are not necessary. Kill file the poster
>> >> if you don't care to read him/her.
>> >
>> >Who said I didn't care to read him/her? I'm just tired of the endless
>> >philippics against antivirus programs. And I'm complaining precisely
>> >_because_ creating all those threads breaks killfiling.
>> >
>> >Anyhow, your suggestion to killfile the poster is worthless, because
>> >I'd still see all the responses to those threads.
>>
>> Killfile the Subject and you won't see the threads anymore.
>
>No, killfiling the subject I won't see that _one_ thread any more.

Right, and that's why I've said that many times (here and in other
newsgroups). It would be a nuisance to have to kill every thread in
which a troll posts, and I would also have to read at least one
message in each thread he posted in.

For me, the best solution is killfiling the troll. It's not perfect (I
still see replies from those who haven't killfiled him), but it's
better than nothing. The more people who killfile the troll, the
better that solution is for the rest of us.

>That's why it's wrong to post multiple threads on a single subject:
>it makes killing a thread ineffective.
>
>Do you really not understand this? I'm dubious.

Glad to meet you, dubious. I'm Dr Livingstone I. Presume. ;-)

On 11/14/2022 7:40 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 07:18:25 -0800, Stan Brown
> <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 16:23:08 -0600, Harlan@simulated_addy.com wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 14:08:36 -0800, Stan Brown
>>> <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 14:32:13 -0600, Harlan@simulated_addy.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 07:44:06 -0800, Stan Brown
>>>>> <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:32:16 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just wondering -- how many dozen threads are you planning to start
>>>>>> for what is essentially all one issue?
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't start fights were they are not necessary. Kill file the poster
>>>>> if you don't care to read him/her.
>>>>
>>>> Who said I didn't care to read him/her? I'm just tired of the endless
>>>> philippics against antivirus programs. And I'm complaining precisely
>>>> _because_ creating all those threads breaks killfiling.
>>>>
>>>> Anyhow, your suggestion to killfile the poster is worthless, because
>>>> I'd still see all the responses to those threads.
>>>
>>> Killfile the Subject and you won't see the threads anymore.
>>
>> No, killfiling the subject I won't see that _one_ thread any more.
>
> Right, and that's why I've said that many times (here and in other
> newsgroups). It would be a nuisance to have to kill every thread in
> which a troll posts, and I would also have to read at least one
> message in each thread he posted in.
>
> For me, the best solution is killfiling the troll. It's not perfect (I
> still see replies from those who haven't killfiled him), but it's
> better than nothing. The more people who killfile the troll, the
> better that solution is for the rest of us.
>
>
>> That's why it's wrong to post multiple threads on a single subject:
>> it makes killing a thread ineffective.
>>
>> Do you really not understand this? I'm dubious.
>
>
> Glad to meet you, dubious. I'm Dr Livingstone I. Presume. ;-)
>

I have two filters (among 13) on my newsgroup server that block trolls.
These are at the top of my list of filters. Each filter query is "Match
all of the following". The first line is "Subject", "doesn't contain",
and "Re:", all of which means that the news message is the start of a
thread by the troll and not a reply from the troll. The second line is
"From", "contains", and the troll's name. While trolls sometimes change
their address in order to defeat filters, they keep their name because
their egos demand that everyone knows they are posting. The filter
actions are "Ignore Thread" followed by "Stop Filter Execution".

Further down in my list of filters, I have others with the action "Mark
As Read" where the query is "Match any of the following" with "From",
"contains", and a troll's name. These allow me to skip over replies
from a troll without killing the entire thread.

--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Beyond Meat and other such vegetarian meat substitutes
represent the ultimate in ultra-processed foods. Real
meat is natural. Beyond Meat is definitely not.

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 14:15:55 +0000, mechanic wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:32:16 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>> For these idiots to keep saying that computers are infected within
>> an hour, or days, is total fabrication. To get infected the user
>> has to 'do' something to cause it.
>
> No.
> https://twitter.com/hackerfantastic/status/863463492090818561

Really? They setup what is probably a commercial machine as
deliberate bait to prove a point? Really?

When do you people stop being deceptive farts and admit sandboxes and
SR programs work?

On 11/13/2022 9:55 PM, Char Jackson wrote:

> Good catch, so PPP was last seen in 1994 and PPPOE was last seen in 2002
> on the mobile data network where I worked at the time, not visible to
> the end user. I guess I've never seen PPPOE in a residential setting, so
> I'm back to my original question. Do you guys (still) use it?

The service that was offered here, was definitely PPPOE.

Because I had to hunt for a solution to connect my Mac.
As you'd expect, the tech support response was "whots a Mac?".
They were prepared to help PC users, but not Apple users.
Once my service was hooked up (it took *three weeks* for the
idiots to turn it on), I had to fend for myself.

There was a third party package to convert incoming PPPOE
into plain Ethernet. It was a bit much to run that on
a cooperative multitasking OS, on a piss-weak processor,
and have an enjoyable session. That's why I rapidly moved
to the cheesy $300 four port router box (BEFSR41?). As it
did PPPOE like it was nothing. But it also crashed twice
an evening (that's where the word "cheesium" comes from).

Before there was standard ADSL (8mbit max), there was a
quick generation of the "1mbit modem" at the phone company,
and I gave that a miss, as I was expecting better things
to happen :-) The first (rental) ADSL modem I had, was an Alcatel,
and it was solid as a rock. It may have had poor security
properties, but it never had a flaky vibe. It was almost
like someone had tested it. The quality of the telephone
lines, was a shitty part of that experience.

At some point, there must have been PPPOA, because I
remember inserting a VCI:VPI into my router of the time.
The VPI might have been 35. It's possible that happened
when we got the pedestal at the corner, but I don't have
a clear memory of all the twists and turns. With the
pedestal at the corner, I could finally get 15Mbit/sec (goodput)
of 24Mbit/sec ADSL2. I think the tech said it was running
17 raw or so, to give 15.

Now there are several VDSL2 offerings, and the just-installed
"sparse fiber" thing. There aren't enough spigots on the
new corner pedestal, to wire up the entire neighborhood
with fiber.

*******

One of the nice things I liked about the dialup PPP software
I had, was that the PPP had a logfile, and you could actually
follow along and see (upon a failure), where the furball was.
You could check whether your session had compressed
headers, or whatever. The mode of the connection was
recorded, as it was negotiated.

Paul