Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [linuxham] Flrig is bad?

Expand Messages
  • w1hkj
    ... The alternative, of course, is to run a Linux / Unix / OS X, system and build the applications from source. One would think that after 30+ years of OS
    Message 1 of 13 , Mar 31 11:17 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      On 03/31/2013 10:47 AM, David A. Ranch wrote:

      Hello Jim,

      Though I agree  with you that this looks like a false positive, I would always encourage you to wait for the vendor (W1HKJ in this case) to confirm that the file/site is ok.  Yes, waiting can be frustrating but websites, uploaded files on said websites, etc. get compromised all the time.  You should trust your A/V system and learn why it might be warning you.  One false assumption will get your computer infected with all maters of malware!  Researching it a bit, others have mentioned this before as well:

          http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.radio.linuxham/10435

      But that was then and this is now.  Times do change so I always recommend people to remain vigilant!

      In this specific case, it's a Reputation warning which can be very prone to false positives BUT it's the only way to flag previously trusted domains as risky when they get compromised, etc.  A good way to see what various systems think of a domain or file is to use sites like https://www.virustotal.com/en/#url


      Seems that Fldigi users and Dave should request to have the reputation system updated:

      Endusers send in disputes that the system is creating false positives:
       https://submit.symantec.com/dispute/

      Developers submitting their domains to not be flagged as higher risk because they aren't as well known:
      https://submit.symantec.com/whitelist/


      --David
      KI6ZHD
      The alternative, of course, is to run a Linux / Unix / OS X, system and build the applications from source.  One would think that after 30+ years of OS development and untold number of version release, that the folks in Redmond could produce a secure operating system.

      Dave
    • qrpbear
      About 10 years ago I was having a problem with both Norton and McAfee reporting two of my programs as being malware. The only common factor between the two was
      Message 2 of 13 , Mar 31 11:40 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        About 10 years ago I was having a problem with both Norton and McAfee reporting two of my programs as being malware. The only common factor between the two was a subroutine that upon running the program for the first time would create a subdirectory in which the program data files were to be stored. I used Visual Basic Script for that subroutine since the "make directory" command was not available in VB6. The programs were being incorrectly tagged as malware simply because I had the audacity to use VB scripting language in a subroutine.

        Take everything the malware scanners tell you with a generous grain of salt. All they do is look for certain byte patterns and nothing beyond that. IMO, the scanners are wrong as often as they are right.

        73,

        'Bear' NH7SR
      • Bob Nielsen
        ... One would also think that Norton should detect and warn of such an insecurity. :^) Bob N7XY
        Message 3 of 13 , Mar 31 5:53 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          On Mar 31, 2013, at 11:17 AM, w1hkj <w1hkj@...> wrote:

          > One would think that after 30+ years of OS development and untold number of version release, that the folks in Redmond could produce a secure operating system.

          One would also think that Norton should detect and warn of such an insecurity. :^)

          Bob N7XY
        • Dave B
          ... There again, all the various Linux s and BSD s about, have their issues too. As does the MAC. Just that they are (A lot!) less targeted by the bad guys
          Message 4 of 13 , Apr 1, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            On 1 Apr 2013 at 1:06, linuxham@yahoogroups.com wrote:

            > ______________________________________________________________________
            > Flrig is bad?
            > Posted by: "Bob Nielsen" n7xy@... n7xy_bob
            > Date: Sun Mar 31, 2013 5:53 pm ((PDT))
            >
            >
            > On Mar 31, 2013, at 11:17 AM, w1hkj <w1hkj@...> wrote:
            >
            > > One would think that after 30+ years of OS development and untold
            > > number of version release, that the folks in Redmond could produce a
            > > secure operating system.
            >
            > One would also think that Norton should detect and warn of such an
            > insecurity. :^)
            >
            > Bob N7XY
            >

            There again, all the various Linux's and BSD's about, have their issues
            too. As does the MAC. Just that they are (A lot!) less targeted by the
            bad guys so thy are percieved as being more secure, plus most 'nix users
            are somewhat more savy about recognising and fixing issues themselves.

            Windows itself is arguably no worse than the rest (no flames please) but
            these days it's mostly third party programs that are getting most of the
            hammering. Adobe PDF reader and Flash, also Oracle's Java run time is
            also full of holes, regardless of what OS platform and or browser it's
            living on.

            From what I hear and am told, most of them begin as simple buffer
            overuns, plus many programmers are not still sanitising input from the
            "outside world" before passing it to some routine to handle (no Else
            clause etc.) And also not checking the size of user supplied datablocks
            before copying from A to B (so it doesnt overflow B.)

            All very well known issues, but people keep making the same mistakes.
            (Me too at times sadly!)

            Mind you, the recently discovered USB handler issues in the windows
            kernel (fixed during the last update for currently supported versions)
            did raise a lot of eyebrows, and has proably been reverse engineered now
            ready to catch those people who don't update, or are still running older
            versions that can't update.

            Take care.

            73.

            Dave G0WBX.
          • David A. Ranch
            ... Well, I think the day of not really needing / requiring anti-malware scanners on Macs is coming to an end as there are more and more users to exploit. I
            Message 5 of 13 , Apr 1, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              >
              > The alternative, of course, is to run a Linux / Unix / OS X, system
              > and build the applications from source. One would think that after
              > 30+ years of OS development and untold number of version release, that
              > the folks in Redmond could produce a secure operating system.

              Well, I think the day of not really needing / requiring anti-malware
              scanners on Macs is coming to an end as there are more and more users to
              exploit. I fully expect to see Android become a security wasteland as
              none of the carriers are sending updates to phones that are older than
              like 6-12 mo old. NOT GOOD.

              The other thing to consider which was brought up by Dave B (so many
              Dave/Davids here! woohoo) is that the primary vulnerabilities these days
              aren't in the OS.. it's 3rd party stuff like Acrobat, Java, Flash, etc.
              Some users might think to themselves that they don't go to risky
              websites so there isn't any worry (say like CNN.com) but this just isn't
              true. Websites get broken into / defaced / etc. all the time and this
              is where these new "reputation" systems come into effect. In the
              original post of this thread, Dave W1HKJ's site could have been hacked
              and the published binaries could have been compromised too. It happens!
              Though the AV system might not have a signature on a new virused
              infected .exe / .zip / .pdf, the current rating for CNN.com or w1hkj.com
              can be dynamically changed very quickly to block users from visiting the
              site until their site is repaired.

              Yes, many more moving pieces to a computer's security setup but the
              reality is that only through these multiple layers of security checks
              can a computer really have any real safety when used by naive and
              experienced user alike!

              Ps. Beyond installing software on each computer, smartphone, tablet,
              etc. to get you this additional level of protection, various home
              router/nat devices offer this now for whole network coverage. Some of
              them are pretty cheap these days from the likes of Netgear, etc. Like
              AV updates which require a subscription, these Web Reputation systems
              also have their own subscriptions. Yay.. more $$ per month.

              --David
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.