Oh, so it’s would be physically impossible for you to write a virus? I guy could hold a gun to your head, the head of your loved ones, and the head of a cute little puppy and say “Modify this virus to point at your web site and release it or you all die” and you still couldn’t do it? bullshit.
I filled in the blanks.
“what Jeff did” was take the original Blaster virus, modified it to drive traffic to a web site of his, and then bragged about it on a message board that he posts to without even masking his IP address. Anybody who’s ever taken any sort of programming class could accomplish this, but it would be stupid to do so, as it makes you easily caught. Therefore, somebody who does this is not a brilliant genius.
Oh no, it doesn’t sound like they’re trying to pin all the damage on him at all, does it?
I agree that he’s a piece of shit. But the FBI’s and the media’s version of the story leaves people, including several in this thread, with the impression that he’s the mastermind who infected their ocmputer, when the odds are squarly against that (7000 infected by him, Verses hundreds of thousands infected by the original).
You are, of course, correct. That is what you wanted to hear isn’t it? If somebody was holding a gun to my head, yes I could write a virus. To be honest, I must have missed that part of the story where it was mentioned that Parson had a gun held to the heads of his family or was under a similar form of duress. Oh, wait a minute! I missed it because it isn’t there. LordVor, if you have information relating to this story that none of us has, than by all means, please share it.
Now, since medical science has come a long way, I’m going to type this for you to read once your cranial-rectal inversion is resolved. What we know about this story is:
Parson modified an existing virus.
Parson re-released the modified virus into the wild.
Parson got caught.
Now what I said originally, that you have taken acception to is,
Hell, I even qualified it for you,
Once again, I still stand by that statement - I could not do what he did (items 1 & 2 from above- in case you also suffer from a short attention span). If you want to change the parameters of the scenario, start a thread in MPSIMS or IMHO, cause I would play.
Since we can assume that LordVar is not illiterate (as we are conversing on a MB) and he actually posted a quote that said the authorities aren’t blaming the kid for everything then maybe he was making a different point? Maybe? You think?
LordVar is inferring (at least it seems to me) that media and authorities are letting this make a big splash while quietly admitting it is a minor arrest. They aren’t going to fabricate evidence to pin it all on Parson but they are letting people get the impression big progress has been made. Since they know it is a copy cat criminal it is a little disingenuous to headline it “arrest due in Blaster case”. YMMV etc.
adam, my point with you is that the mother used the word “could” which, in english, means " be physically or mentally able to". “Would”, on the other hand, means " used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent". You are using the word “could” wrong, and by doing so are misinterpreting the mother’s quote. You are physically able to do what he did, but you have no desire to do so. You “could” do it, but you “wouldn’t”. You, being an adult and everything, are perfectly welcome to continue misusing the word “could”, but it would help the rest of us greatly if you assume that, when we use the word, we’re using its proper meaning.
CarnalK, given the spelling in my last post, he has every right to question my literacy. Thanks for seeing my point, though. The blame in the court of law is going to be for the crimes that he did. But, in the media and the public perception, they are intensionally underselling the fact that he isn’t the main culprit so that the public can put all the blame squarely on his shoulders. This is a scapegoat.
The key part of the quote was not the fact that they stated that they didn’t think he wrote the original, the key part was that they spent the first 8 paragraphs detailing how big a pain in the ass the virus was overall, while in paragraph 9 (hence the all-cap, bolded 9)they said that he wasn’t the original author. Note also that nowhere in the story is the reader given the information that his version accounted for less than 2% of infestations, again leaving the public thinking that this shmuck was a major player.
Yeah sometimes you are correct. I was going for “obtuse” in this instant though. I’m sure it’s just that you are in a big rush to get your snappy come-back in.
Oh, well, obtuse is just BS. What I did do was engage in some minor hyperbole. Look, nobody’s scapegoating this crook, IMHO. The schmuck did 2% of the damage and 2% of a lot of damage is still a lot. So, no scapegoat: just a crook.
If there were 100 unsolved rapes in a particular city over a span of time, of which 98 were committed by 1 guy and 2 were committed by another, and they caught the guy that did 2, would it be right for the news to report the story in the following manner?
Or do you think, maybe, that that “2 out of the 100” number should show up in the article somewhere?
You continue to prove the case against yourself, Val. Your hypothetical news story would actually be quite acceptable had the rapes committed by that particular rapist been the most vicious.
Well I believe it was less than 2% (his infected 7,000 comps: total Blaster infection 500,000 on this page halfway down).
LordVar, I didn’t notice any reference to Parson’s version being any more vicous. Not sure why you added that to your analogy.
Anyway, more news: Anothercode modifying virus spreader seems to have been snagged in Romania. Apparently he faces up to 15 yrs max penalty. His version is not, according to the article, thought to have spread outside of Romania.
Note also that I haven’t heard any justification for calling his version any more “toxic” than the original, from what I heard he just modified some strings in the program.
So I guess, in a way, that means that Monty agrees that the way the media is portraying him is unacceptible.
FWIW, I don’t personally think it is scapegoating. Just standard puffing up of an accomplishment.
I’m sure you would agree Monty that overestimating the significance of this sub-investigation will not help stop computer crime. It seems to me a responsible report of the situation should highlight the current uncatchability(word?) of the original author(s). That might bring some useful discussion in place of the “hang 'em high” talk.
Who would have thought in 2003 people STILL allow their computers to get infected. While people place a ton of blame on you for the damage done, no one seems to remember there is 30 million dimwits that don’t have virus software (or don’t have it updated), don’t keep tabs on OS updates, don’t have a firewall, and continue to open e-mail attachments from people they don’t know.
Funny thing, if all these computer users reversed this your virus would have had little or no effect.