Discussion:
Bizarre Secret Tunnels Discovered After Deadly Fire Underneath Wealthy Hacker's House
(too old to reply)
Virus Guy
2018-09-09 20:45:47 UTC
Permalink
Bizarre Secret Tunnels Discovered After Deadly Fire Underneath Wealthy
Hacker's House

Sun, 09/09/2018

A deadly fire underneath a wealthy hacker's Maryland home has exposed a
bizarre underground nuclear bunker project that claimed the life of a
young man he hired over the internet to dig tunnels, Askia Khafra,
reports the Associated Press.

Maryland prosecutors portray Beckwitt, a 27-year-old millionaire,
as a paranoid computer hacker who recklessly endangered Khafra’s life.
In May, they secured Beckwitt’s indictment on charges of second-degree
murder and involuntary manslaughter. -AP

Loading Image...

Prosecutors say Beckwitt had a "paranoid fixation" about a possible
nuclear attack by North Korea.

27-year-old millionaire Daniel Beckwitt took elaborate steps to conceal
the tunnels, which begin 20 feet underground and extend approximately
200 feet out from from the property - going so far as to hide the
location of his house from the 21-year-old Khafra, who lost his life in
a September 10, 2017 fire in Beckwitt's basement.

Loading Image...

A police report said Beckwitt told investigators how he tried to
preserve his project’s secrecy when he took Khafra there. Beckwitt said
he would rent a car, pick Khafra up and drive him to Manassas, Virginia,
where he had the younger man don “blackout glasses” before driving him
around for about an hour. Khafra spent days at a time working, eating
and sleeping in the tunnels. He had his cellphone with him, but Beckwitt
used internet “spoofing” to make it appear he was in Virginia, according
to Montgomery County prosecutor Douglas Wink.

Investigators found the younger Khafra’s charred body in the
basement of Beckwitt’s Bethesda home. A hole in the concrete basement
floor led to a shaft that dropped down 20 feet (6 meters) into tunnels
that branched out roughly 200 feet (60 meters) in length. -AP

“These are the lengths the defendant went through in order to hide the
truth from Askia Khafra as to where he was and to maintain the secrecy
of these tunnels,” Wink said during a May 31 hearing.

Khafra met Beckwitt online and agreed to dig the tunnels in exchange for
an investment in an internet company the younger man was launching.

Beckwitt lived alone in what are described as "extreme hoarder
conditions," which forced he and Khafra to navigate through a maze of
junk and trash, according to Wink. The tunnel dig had lights, an air
circulation system and a heater which were supplied by a "haphazard
daisy chain" of power strips which created a fire risk, according to the
prosecutor.

Several hours before the deadly fire, Khafra texted Beckwitt to notify
him of a smoke smell in the tunnels. Beckwitt responded by flipping a
breaker that turned off the lights, however he turned the power back on
when Khafra said he could not see. Prosecutors say Beckwitt ignored
"obvious signs" of danger.

"I always feared something dangerous would happen to him" said Khafra's
father, 69-year-old Dia Khafra, who says his son was impressed by
Beckwitt's wealth.

“I think Askia was very trusting,” he said. “He believed in the guy.”

Dia Khafra said he only met Beckwitt once, when he dropped off his son
at their home. He seemed shy.

“He said he made his money off bitcoins,” Khafra recalled. -AP

Beckwitt's attorney describes him as a successful "day trader" who has
made millions trading stocks, and compared his client's concerns to "the
days of the Cuban missile crisis."

According to AP, Beckwitt lived with his parents at the Bethesda house
until he left for college at the University of Illinois, where he was
arrested by campus police in 2013 for charges including computer fraud.
Authorities suspected him of installing keystroke loggers on the Urbana
school's computers. Beckwitt pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two
years probation.

The conviction did not steer Beckwitt away from computers after he
moved back to Maryland. In 2016, he spoke at a hacker convention using
the alias “3AlarmLampscooter” while wearing a fire-resistant suit and
visor that obscured his face.

Wink said Beckwitt was teaching his audience how to make thermite
bombs to destroy computer data “to get away with hacking”.

Bonsib said his client’s use of a pseudonym and disguise was
harmless, typical of the “weird things” people do on the internet. -AP

Beckwitt was sued by county officials over his property's condition,
calling it an unsafe "public nuisance." Wooden boards are now covering
the doors and windows of the house, which is currently encircled by a
chain-link fence and police tape.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-09/bizarre-secret-tunnels-discovered-after-deadly-fire-underneath-wealthy-hackers
Shadow
2018-09-12 12:47:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Virus Guy
Prosecutors say Beckwitt had a "paranoid fixation" about a possible
nuclear attack by North Korea.
Him and anyone that watches (and believes) #FAUX_NEWS (AKA
"Fox News" in the USA).

What anti-virus do you recommend to fix the problem ?
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Diesel
2018-09-16 05:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shadow
Post by Virus Guy
Prosecutors say Beckwitt had a "paranoid fixation" about a possible
nuclear attack by North Korea.
Him and anyone that watches (and believes) #FAUX_NEWS (AKA
"Fox News" in the USA).
What anti-virus do you recommend to fix the problem ?
What still supports windows 9x/me? :)
--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit here:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
===================================================
Mmmmmm, something smells good! It's me.' * Cat
Shadow
2018-09-16 11:11:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diesel
Post by Shadow
Post by Virus Guy
Prosecutors say Beckwitt had a "paranoid fixation" about a possible
nuclear attack by North Korea.
Him and anyone that watches (and believes) #FAUX_NEWS (AKA
"Fox News" in the USA).
What anti-virus do you recommend to fix the problem ?
What still supports windows 9x/me? :)
Amazing, Virus guy still uses Win98. I hadn't noticed. Either
that or he munges his headers.
He's probably safer than if he used Win 10 though, so maybe he
has a point.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Apd
2018-09-16 13:18:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shadow
Amazing, Virus guy still uses Win98. I hadn't noticed. Either
that or he munges his headers.
He's probably safer than if he used Win 10 though, so maybe he
has a point.
Indeed. Malware writers are lazy an will likely be using whatever
development frameworks are currently available. Thus they will be
(unknowingly) using more recent APIs that don't exist in earlier
Windows versions. They also like to use Powershell scripts and
.NET code which is not present on some versions of XP and below.
It's unlikely they'll be deliberately targeting systems below XP.

BTW, I'm posting this from Windows 2000, the best version MS ever
made!
Virus Guy
2018-09-16 15:19:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Apd
Post by Shadow
Amazing, Virus guy still uses Win98. I hadn't noticed.
Either that or he munges his headers.
Yes, I still primarily use win-98 on two systems, one of which (the one
I'm posting this from) has 2 gb of ram and several 1TB sata hard drives.
Post by Apd
Post by Shadow
He's probably safer than if he used Win 10 though, so maybe he
has a point.
Indeed. Malware writers are lazy an will likely be using whatever
development frameworks are currently available.
No, I think its more true that malware writers and botnet operators will
jump on the most recent vulnerability discoveries and leverage them
before updates and patches are installed.
Post by Apd
It's unlikely they'll be deliberately targeting systems below XP.
BTW, I'm posting this from Windows 2000, the best version MS ever
made!
Windows 2k and XP were the most vulnerable NT-based operating systems to
ever be put into use. It's more accurate to say that they functioned
primarily more as trojan-hosting systems than end-user productivity
tools. At least for XP, given that Win-2k use was far more limited than XP.

I posted the following in April 2014. The take-home message being this:

Win-9x/me was, either by design or "dumb luck", a far less vulnerable OS
in terms of it being made to reliably be tripped up by exploit code
(heap spray, buffer-over-run exploits) than the NT line. 9x/me was
never vulnerable to network worms the way NT was - because of all the
open ports and services that OS's like 2K and XP turn on by default. In
fact, the default setting for file and print sharing is enabled for XP,
but is disabled for 9x/me.

The truth is that Win-9x/me has alway been harder to break into from a
remote access point vs the NT line (2k/XP etc). The term "internet
survival time" was coined as a way to measure how long it would take for
fresh install of win-2k or XP-SP0/1 to be hacked by a worm when the
computer was directly connected to the internet for the first time (with
no firewall or nat-router).

Typically, back in 2001 to 2004 your win-2k or XP system with a fresh
install would be hacked in 10 to 20 minutes - with no user intervention
or action required! In fact, unless you were behind a nat-router (which
was a new concept for residential DSL connections back 10+ years ago)
you had a hard time performing your first on-line update before your
system was hit by a network worm.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Posted to various XP newsgroups in April 2014:


When MS stopped supporting Win-98 in July 2006, there was a grand total
of 33 security issues that had been identified during it's 7-year
lifespan:

=======================
Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition:

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/13/?task=advisories

Affected By:
33 Secunia advisories
22 Vulnerabilities

Unpatched:
9% (3 of 33 Secunia advisories)

Most Critical Unpatched:

The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows
98 Second Edition, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Less
critical.
=======================

Now compare that to the most current (and probably very close to the
final tally):

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Windows XP Professional:

========================
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/22/?task=advisories

Affected By:
446 Secunia advisories
668 Vulnerabilities

Unpatched:
10% (44 of 446 Secunia advisories)

Most Critical Unpatched: The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory
affecting Microsoft Windows XP Professional, with all vendor patches
applied, is rated Highly critical.
========================

Over the past year, the number of "Secunia" advisories for XP has been
increasing at the rate of about 2.5 per month, and the number of
vulnerabilities has been increasing at the rate of 7 per month. In Dec
2012 there was 44 unpatched vulnerabilities. That number hasn't changed
in 15 months.

The truth is that Win-9x/me has alway been harder to break into from a
remote access point vs the NT line (2k/XP etc). The term "internet
survival time" was coined as a way to measure how long it would take for
fresh install of win-2k or XP-SP0/1 to be hacked by a worm when the
computer was directly connected to the internet for the first time (with
no firewall or nat-router).

Typically, back in 2001 to 2004 your win-2k or XP system with a fresh
install would be hacked in 10 to 20 minutes - with no user intervention
or action required! In fact, unless you were behind a nat-router (which
was a new concept for residential DSL connections back 10+ years ago)
you had a hard time performing your first on-line update before your
system was hit by a network worm.

Win-9x/me was, either by design or "dumb luck", a far less vulnerable OS
in terms of it being made to reliably be tripped up by exploit code
(heap spray, buffer-over-run exploits) than the NT line. 9x/me was
never vulnerable to network worms the way NT was - because of all the
open ports and services that OS's like 2K and XP turn on by default. In
fact, the default setting for file and print sharing is enabled for XP,
but is disabled for 9x/me.

The "security" concept that is frequently mentioned with 9x vs NT is the
idea of being able to control what the local user can do with the
system, and it is true that the local user sitting at the 9x/me keyboard
has access to the entire system (all files, registry, etc).

But in terms of internet security and exposing a system to remote
exploit code, the NT line fell far short of being as invulnerable to
such exploit paths as 9x/me was, and the Secunia numbers posted above
are perfect examples of that.
Shadow
2018-09-16 21:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Virus Guy
Post by Apd
Post by Shadow
Amazing, Virus guy still uses Win98. I hadn't noticed.
Either that or he munges his headers.
Yes, I still primarily use win-98 on two systems, one of which (the one
I'm posting this from) has 2 gb of ram and several 1TB sata hard drives.
I seem to remember that win 98 could only address up to 64MB
of RAM. That was one of the reasons I switched to XP in 2006 or so.
Post by Virus Guy
Post by Apd
Post by Shadow
He's probably safer than if he used Win 10 though, so maybe he
has a point.
Indeed. Malware writers are lazy an will likely be using whatever
development frameworks are currently available.
No, I think its more true that malware writers and botnet operators will
jump on the most recent vulnerability discoveries and leverage them
before updates and patches are installed.
Post by Apd
It's unlikely they'll be deliberately targeting systems below XP.
BTW, I'm posting this from Windows 2000, the best version MS ever
made!
Windows 2k and XP were the most vulnerable NT-based operating systems to
ever be put into use. It's more accurate to say that they functioned
primarily more as trojan-hosting systems than end-user productivity
tools. At least for XP, given that Win-2k use was far more limited than XP.
Win-9x/me was, either by design or "dumb luck", a far less vulnerable OS
in terms of it being made to reliably be tripped up by exploit code
(heap spray, buffer-over-run exploits) than the NT line. 9x/me was
never vulnerable to network worms the way NT was - because of all the
open ports and services that OS's like 2K and XP turn on by default. In
fact, the default setting for file and print sharing is enabled for XP,
but is disabled for 9x/me.
The truth is that Win-9x/me has alway been harder to break into from a
remote access point vs the NT line (2k/XP etc). The term "internet
survival time" was coined as a way to measure how long it would take for
fresh install of win-2k or XP-SP0/1 to be hacked by a worm when the
computer was directly connected to the internet for the first time (with
no firewall or nat-router).
Typically, back in 2001 to 2004 your win-2k or XP system with a fresh
install would be hacked in 10 to 20 minutes - with no user intervention
or action required! In fact, unless you were behind a nat-router (which
was a new concept for residential DSL connections back 10+ years ago)
you had a hard time performing your first on-line update before your
system was hit by a network worm.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When MS stopped supporting Win-98 in July 2006, there was a grand total
of 33 security issues that had been identified during it's 7-year
=======================
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/13/?task=advisories
33 Secunia advisories
22 Vulnerabilities
9% (3 of 33 Secunia advisories)
The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows
98 Second Edition, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Less
critical.
=======================
Now compare that to the most current (and probably very close to the
========================
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/22/?task=advisories
446 Secunia advisories
668 Vulnerabilities
10% (44 of 446 Secunia advisories)
Most Critical Unpatched: The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory
affecting Microsoft Windows XP Professional, with all vendor patches
applied, is rated Highly critical.
========================
Over the past year, the number of "Secunia" advisories for XP has been
increasing at the rate of about 2.5 per month, and the number of
vulnerabilities has been increasing at the rate of 7 per month. In Dec
2012 there was 44 unpatched vulnerabilities. That number hasn't changed
in 15 months.
The truth is that Win-9x/me has alway been harder to break into from a
remote access point vs the NT line (2k/XP etc). The term "internet
survival time" was coined as a way to measure how long it would take for
fresh install of win-2k or XP-SP0/1 to be hacked by a worm when the
computer was directly connected to the internet for the first time (with
no firewall or nat-router).
Typically, back in 2001 to 2004 your win-2k or XP system with a fresh
install would be hacked in 10 to 20 minutes - with no user intervention
or action required! In fact, unless you were behind a nat-router (which
was a new concept for residential DSL connections back 10+ years ago)
you had a hard time performing your first on-line update before your
system was hit by a network worm.
Win-9x/me was, either by design or "dumb luck", a far less vulnerable OS
in terms of it being made to reliably be tripped up by exploit code
(heap spray, buffer-over-run exploits) than the NT line. 9x/me was
never vulnerable to network worms the way NT was - because of all the
open ports and services that OS's like 2K and XP turn on by default. In
fact, the default setting for file and print sharing is enabled for XP,
but is disabled for 9x/me.
The "security" concept that is frequently mentioned with 9x vs NT is the
idea of being able to control what the local user can do with the
system, and it is true that the local user sitting at the 9x/me keyboard
has access to the entire system (all files, registry, etc).
But in terms of internet security and exposing a system to remote
exploit code, the NT line fell far short of being as invulnerable to
such exploit paths as 9x/me was, and the Secunia numbers posted above
are perfect examples of that.
Nevertheless, I'm still going to use XP. Have not used a
resident AV for more or less 5 years now.
A very large number of softwares no longer work on 98. And Win
8 - 10 (and to a lesser extent Win 7) are just dumb terminals now.
[]'s

PS Anything won't work on XP, I use Devuan 2.0. Except for
Firefox, which is a security nightmare, it's pretty "safe". No
systemDisease.
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Virus Guy
2018-09-17 00:04:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shadow
Post by Virus Guy
Yes, I still primarily use win-98 on two systems, one of which (the one
I'm posting this from) has 2 gb of ram and several 1TB sata hard drives.
I seem to remember that win 98 could only address up to 64MB
of RAM. That was one of the reasons I switched to XP in 2006 or so.
Windows 98 se, out of the box, can handle 512 mb of ram. In fact, when
installing 98se unless you modify some of the installation files the
system must not have more than 512 mb of ram. Once installed, and some
vcache settings are changed, the hard upper limit in terms of installed
ram is something like 1.195 mb of ram (something that can be achieved
with creative use of a ram drive that consumes some system ram to limit
what is "visible" to win-98). Most situations involving a Pentium-4
based motherboard (socket 478 or 775) should have no problems running
win-98 with 1 gb of installed ram and that is indeed very useful
compared to the more anemic 64 - 256 mb amounts of ram that most people
think is suitable for win-98.

Quite a while ago a trivial hack was discovered to VMM32.VXD and VMM.VXD
files that allows win-98 to see and use up to at least 3 and maybe all 4
gb of installed ram. Above 2 gb you might have problems with some
motherboards and VGA display ram (something about the amount of ram on
the video card and/or the bios video apperture size setting).

It would have been very common back in 2005 - 2007 time-frame to see
win-98 installed on a (at the time) new or current motherboard with at
least 512 mb of ram.
Post by Shadow
Post by Virus Guy
But in terms of internet security and exposing a system to remote
exploit code, the NT line fell far short of being as invulnerable to
such exploit paths as 9x/me was, and the Secunia numbers posted above
are perfect examples of that.
Nevertheless, I'm still going to use XP. Have not used a
resident AV for more or less 5 years now.
And likewise I have not used an AV program on my win-98 systems since
probably 2008.
Post by Shadow
A very large number of softwares no longer work on 98.
A surprisingly large assortment of older versions of current software
runs just fine on win-98, aided by a kernel compatibility layer known as
"KernelEx" that was developed maybe 10 years ago and contines to be
enhanced today. And there is a similar project for XP I believe.
Diesel
2018-10-27 10:02:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Virus Guy
Windows 98 se, out of the box, can handle 512 mb of ram. In fact,
when installing 98se unless you modify some of the installation
files the system must not have more than 512 mb of ram. Once
installed, and some vcache settings are changed, the hard upper
limit in terms of installed ram is something like 1.195 mb of ram
(something that can be achieved with creative use of a ram drive
that consumes some system ram to limit what is "visible" to
win-98). Most situations involving a Pentium-4 based motherboard
(socket 478 or 775) should have no problems running win-98 with 1
gb of installed ram and that is indeed very useful compared to the
more anemic 64 - 256 mb amounts of ram that most people think is
suitable for win-98.
Putting windows 9x on a pentium 4 class (or better) machine is a
waste of hardware; granted, older hardware, but a waste none the
less. Windows 9x won't take advantage of it.
Post by Virus Guy
Quite a while ago a trivial hack was discovered to VMM32.VXD and
VMM.VXD files that allows win-98 to see and use up to at least 3
and maybe all 4 gb of installed ram. Above 2 gb you might have
problems with some motherboards and VGA display ram (something
about the amount of ram on the video card and/or the bios video
apperture size setting).
That's an unstable modification, too. You won't use all 4gb of ram on
windows 9x, hacked vmm or not. 32bit editions of XP won't even use
all 4gigs.
Post by Virus Guy
It would have been very common back in 2005 - 2007 time-frame to
see win-98 installed on a (at the time) new or current motherboard
with at least 512 mb of ram.
Yep.
Post by Virus Guy
And likewise I have not used an AV program on my win-98 systems
since probably 2008.
The best AV is the gray matter between your ears. That being said,
your windows 9x machine is only a matter of flipping a few things
around in some source code and recompiling away from being 0wned by a
virus modern AV shouldn't (but I make no promises, they had problems
before and I'm not sure they resolved all of them) have a problem
with removing for you. Unlike simple trojans and other things you
know as malware, this would be real and thus, not a joke or something
to play around with.

I'm certain you don't have the expertise to study a working one
without getting your system infected in the process.
Post by Virus Guy
A surprisingly large assortment of older versions of current
software runs just fine on win-98, aided by a kernel compatibility
layer known as "KernelEx" that was developed maybe 10 years ago
and contines to be enhanced today. And there is a similar project
for XP I believe.
Another series of mods and patches.
--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit here:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
===================================================
I go fishing; I catch nothing. I go to orgies; I catch everything.
Apd
2018-09-17 00:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Virus Guy
Post by Apd
Post by Shadow
He's probably safer than if he used Win 10 though, so maybe he
has a point.
Indeed. Malware writers are lazy an will likely be using whatever
development frameworks are currently available.
No, I think its more true that malware writers and botnet operators will
jump on the most recent vulnerability discoveries and leverage them
before updates and patches are installed.
That's true, and those vulns will likely apply only to the monstrosity
that is Win 10. However, to deliver the exploits they're unlikely to
be using a 32 bit executable built with Visual Studio 6 or a script
that will even run on my system.
Post by Virus Guy
Post by Apd
It's unlikely they'll be deliberately targeting systems below XP.
BTW, I'm posting this from Windows 2000, the best version MS ever
made!
Windows 2k and XP were the most vulnerable NT-based operating systems to
ever be put into use. It's more accurate to say that they functioned
primarily more as trojan-hosting systems than end-user productivity
tools. At least for XP, given that Win-2k use was far more limited than XP.
You have a point about the early NT systems having all manner of
unnecessary services running by default with ports open to the
internet. That's why I've configured my Win2k to have minimal services
running and further tweaked it to close any other listening ports that
I don't specifically require for the current network task. Network
access is also completely disabled when I'm not actively using it.
Diesel
2018-10-27 10:02:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Virus Guy
Windows 2k and XP were the most vulnerable NT-based operating
systems to ever be put into use. It's more accurate to say that
they functioned primarily more as trojan-hosting systems than
end-user productivity tools. At least for XP, given that Win-2k
use was far more limited than XP.
Ehm. You're still spewing complete horse shit as factual information.
Win2k and XP are by far, not the most insecure flavors of NT to
exist. You're writing from your arsehole concerning subject matter
you barely understand. We've been over this, many many times before.
Nothings changed since the last time you spewed your nonsense.
Post by Virus Guy
The truth is that Win-9x/me has alway been harder to break into
from a remote access point vs the NT line (2k/XP etc).
Actually, no, it hasn't. By default, as in out of the box, netbios
was bound to your tcp/ip stack. Which made remote drive mapping a
very friendly prospect if you weren't behind a 3rd party firewall.
Post by Virus Guy
"internet survival time" was coined as a way to measure how long
it would take for fresh install of win-2k or XP-SP0/1 to be hacked
by a worm when the computer was directly connected to the internet
for the first time (with no firewall or nat-router).
That's not a fair or reasonably sound test, either. It had visible
ports with buggy server side software listening. With a firewall,
those ports wouldn't be available to the outside world unless you
made firewall rules stating they should be. If you intentionally
cripple your defenses by limiting and/or disabling them, then you
deserve to be 0wned.
Post by Virus Guy
Typically, back in 2001 to 2004 your win-2k or XP system with a
fresh install would be hacked in 10 to 20 minutes - with no user
intervention or action required!
That wasn't a set in stone deal. And, only an idiot would surf the
net on a windows (any windows) system in the dmz and/or with a
disabled firewall. It's a stupid thing to be doing. Btw, your win9x
machines without a firewall were (and still are) vulnerable to a
variety of tcp/ip based exploits. A firewall is your friend.
Post by Virus Guy
In fact, unless you were behind a nat-router (which was a new
concept for residential DSL connections back 10+ years ago) you had
a hard time performing your first on-line update before your system
was hit by a network worm.
Bullshit. Zone alarm, tinyfirewall, etc would have kept you safe in
the event you weren't behind a nat based firewall. I don't know where
your getting your figures from, but, DSL/cable with firewalls have
been common place for a bit more than a decade now. Atleast in this
area. Perhaps if you live in a very rural place, it took longer...

You write as if the world would end the moment you plugged a cable
into an XP machine to give it internet access and that's just not so
in real life.
And it was just as wrong then, too. It's no secret that for whatever
crazy misinformed reason you think windows 9x is far more secure than
the later NT editions, but, it doesn't make it so. It just shows that
you're a paranoid and extremely misinformed individual.
Post by Virus Guy
When MS stopped supporting Win-98 in July 2006, there was a grand
total of 33 security issues that had been identified during it's
The "security" concept that is frequently mentioned with 9x vs NT
is the idea of being able to control what the local user can do
with the system, and it is true that the local user sitting at the
9x/me keyboard has access to the entire system (all files,
registry, etc).
Not just the user, but any/every single program the user runs.
There's nothing on a windows 9x system to compartmentalize damage or
restrict where and what a program you ran has access too. Nothing
stops it from accessing any file on your hard disk it likes. There's
no permissions, no security, nothing. A simple virus written in the
late 90s/early 00s can *easily* take your entire machine within
minutes. You have NO SECURITY features on your OS which would even
slow the process down. What's more, your OS doesn't have to emulate
the code, it can run it real; which allows full functionality and
minimal risk of a code crash. Where as with NT based systems, it's
emulated and the risk of failure is higher.

That's not even including the security permissions that could
restrict and/or limit what the virus can access and how deep it can
get into your machine as far as infections goes.

I've offered you a sample to play with and get owned by on more than
one occasion, but, you've yet to put your money where your mouth is
and put windows 9x 'security' to the test with something that *will*
take it from you.
Post by Virus Guy
But in terms of internet security and exposing a system to remote
exploit code, the NT line fell far short of being as invulnerable
to such exploit paths as 9x/me was, and the Secunia numbers posted
above are perfect examples of that.
No, they aren't. Many of those exploits came via browser surfing with
IE and users doing stupid things, just as they did with Windows 9x.
The only exception being, on NT, the malware they just installed
isn't actually everywhere on the NT machine; it has restricted
access. Where as with the windows 9x system, even the mbr is up for
grabs and modification. Total, 0wnage before windows 9x even boots,
if one wants to go that route.

I know that nothing I or anyone else writes is ever going to change
your opinion, and, I don't much care. I don't respond to you
expecting you to realize you're wrong, it's for the benefit of anyone
who's read your logical on the surface (but still inaccurate results)
rants concerning the so called superior security windows 9x offers
over NT.

There's something else about windows 9x I've never seen you mention.
You either don't run into the problem because your machines don't run
24/7, or you have, and have just learned to deal with it. After so
many days, windows 9x (me included) has to be hard reset. It cannot
run for say, 90 days at one time. NT systems can. I believe around
the 42, 43rd or so day, the systems resources are depleted (due to
memory leaks) and a reset has to be performed to regain use of the
machine. I know this because I've seen it, many times, first hand.
And, it's a documented issue with microsoft, too. It's actually quite
known amongst repair tech circles. It's why windows 9x makes for a
horrible host for an FTP server. It was never fixed, it'll never be
fixed. It was present since windows 3x and carried all the way to
Windows ME.

Another thing you probably don't know about the windows code base
iterations. Everything that isn't NT based still had actual DOS/early
windows 3.x native code present in their executables and libraries.
Yep, you read that correctly. MS recycled and recycled and recycled.

Windows 9x is still, to this day, a glorified (using an MS version of
time slicing to give you the false impression of multi tasking) shell
riding on top of, in lieu of (as is the case with NT based systems)
DOS. It's a shell. An advanced shell, but a shell non the less.
Windows ME tried to hide the fact it was still DOS based by making it
more difficult to reach a command prompt on startup. Flipping a
couple of bytes in IO.SYS would cause it to act like Windows 9x
again; which it was based on, and did so poorly, MS pulled it from
the sales distribution channels three months after it's release.

If you'd like to discuss operating system history in greater detail
sometime, lemme know. It's a subject that's always interested me.
Primarily because I've watched the systems change throughout the
years... When you've been doing I.T professionally for as long as I
have (and many like me), it's not history so much as it's a trip down
memory lane for us.
--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit here:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
===================================================
Death is God's way of dropping carrier.
Pabst Blue Ribbon
2018-09-17 04:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shadow
Post by Diesel
Post by Shadow
Post by Virus Guy
Prosecutors say Beckwitt had a "paranoid fixation" about a possible
nuclear attack by North Korea.
Him and anyone that watches (and believes) #FAUX_NEWS (AKA
"Fox News" in the USA).
What anti-virus do you recommend to fix the problem ?
What still supports windows 9x/me? :)
Amazing, Virus guy still uses Win98. I hadn't noticed. Either
that or he munges his headers.
He's probably safer than if he used Win 10 though, so maybe he
has a point.
Perhaps he should try to do

ping -l 32000 -t 127.0.0.1
Post by Shadow
[]'s
Shadow
2018-09-20 01:47:12 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 04:03:17 GMT, Pabst Blue Ribbon
Post by Pabst Blue Ribbon
Post by Shadow
Post by Diesel
Post by Shadow
Post by Virus Guy
Prosecutors say Beckwitt had a "paranoid fixation" about a possible
nuclear attack by North Korea.
Him and anyone that watches (and believes) #FAUX_NEWS (AKA
"Fox News" in the USA).
What anti-virus do you recommend to fix the problem ?
What still supports windows 9x/me? :)
Amazing, Virus guy still uses Win98. I hadn't noticed. Either
that or he munges his headers.
He's probably safer than if he used Win 10 though, so maybe he
has a point.
Perhaps he should try to do
ping -l 32000 -t 127.0.0.1
Or con con

http://outpost9.com/exploits/unsorted/01-scx-sa-01.txt

[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Virus Guy
2018-09-20 14:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shadow
Or con con
http://outpost9.com/exploits/unsorted/01-scx-sa-01.txt
In a throwback to the ’90s, NTFS bug lets anyone hang or crash Windows
7, 8.1

It's like the c:\con\con bug all over again.

Peter Bright - May 25, 2017 9:45 pm UTC

Those of you with long memories might remember one of the more amusing
(or perhaps annoying) bugs of the Windows 95 and 98 era: certain
specially crafted filenames could make the operating system crash.
Malicious users could use this to attack other people's machines by
using one of the special filenames as an image source; the browser would
try to access the bad file, and Windows would promptly fall over.

It turns out that Windows 7 and 8.1 (and Windows Vista, but that's out
of support anyway) have a similar kind of bug. They can be taken
advantage of in the same kind of way: certain bad filenames make the
system lock up or occasionally crash with a blue screen of death, and
malicious webpages can embed those filenames by using them as image
sources. If you visit such a page (in any browser), your PC will hang
shortly after and possibly crash outright.

The Windows 9x-era bug was due to an error in the way that operating
systems handled special filenames. Windows has a number of filenames
that are "special" because they don't correspond to any actual file;
instead, they represent hardware devices. These special filenames can be
accessed from any location in the file system, even though they don't
exist on-disk.

While any of these special filenames would have worked, the most common
one used to crash old Windows machines was con, a special filename that
represents the physical console: the keyboard (for input) and the screen
(for output). Windows correctly handled simple attempts to access the
con device, but a filename included two references to the special
device—for example, c:\con\con—then Windows would crash. If that file
was referenced from a webpage, for example, by trying to load an image
from file:///c:/con/con then the machine would crash whenever the
malicious page was accessed.

The new bug, which fortunately doesn't appear to afflict Windows 10,
uses another special filename. This time around, the special filename of
choice is $MFT. $MFT is the name given to one of the special metadata
files that are used by Windows' NTFS filesystem. The file exists in the
root directory of each NTFS volume, but the NTFS driver handles it in
special ways, and it's hidden from view and inaccessible to most
software. Attempts to open the file are normally blocked, but in a move
reminiscent of the Windows 9x flaw, if the filename is used as if it
were a directory name—for example, trying to open the file
c:\$MFT\123—then the NTFS driver takes out a lock on the file and never
releases it. Every subsequent operation sits around waiting for the lock
to be released.Forever. This blocks any and all other attempts to access
the file system, and so every program will start to hang, rendering the
machine unusable until it is rebooted.

As was the case nearly 20 years ago, webpages that use the bad filename
in, for example, an image source will provoke the bug and make the
machine stop responding. Depending on what the machine is doing
concurrently, it will sometimes blue screen. Either way, you're going to
need to reboot it to recover. Some browsers will block attempts to
access these local resources, but Internet Explorer, for example, will
merrily try to access the bad file.

We couldn't immediately cause the same thing to occur remotely (for
example, by sending IIS a request for a bad filename), but it wouldn't
immediately surprise us if certain configurations or trickery were
enough to cause the same problem.

Microsoft has been informed, but at the time of publication has not told
us when or if the problem will be patched.
Diesel
2018-10-27 10:02:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shadow
Post by Diesel
Post by Shadow
Post by Virus Guy
Prosecutors say Beckwitt had a "paranoid fixation" about a
possible nuclear attack by North Korea.
Him and anyone that watches (and believes) #FAUX_NEWS (AKA
"Fox News" in the USA).
What anti-virus do you recommend to fix the problem ?
What still supports windows 9x/me? :)
Amazing, Virus guy still uses Win98. I hadn't noticed. Either
that or he munges his headers.
Nope. he's really using it. Swears by it. Touts it's superior
security over that of NT systems. I kid you not.
Post by Shadow
He's probably safer than if he used Win 10 though, so maybe
he has a point.
ROFL. Don't encourage the dumb shit.
--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit here:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
===================================================
Insert funny but obscure remark here.
Thane
2018-10-27 13:02:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diesel
ROFL. Don't encourage the dumb shit.
Agreed. Between Win9x and Google rants, it's safe to just ignore him on
all of what he posts, including his helpful news. This is not the only
news group he tries it on. (Other nyms:- 98 Guy, Spam Guy, Home Guy, Math
Guy and others).

Thane

Loading...