Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Thread Morons -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (9400)	4/16/2000 1:38:00 PM
From: pezz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12810

Clearly you are more computer savvy than myself.... But check this out netsecurity.about.com Most of NetBus' features seem fairly harmless, such as "Open CD", "Swap Mouse", or "Play Sound". But there are some features that could seriously undermine your security. Take "Start Program" for example. With this button you could run any program at all on the host machine without the user being aware of what is going on. With the message manager you could send false messages to the host and trick the user into revealing sensitive information to you. The message takes the form of a Windows dialog box and can have such elements as an "OK" button, "OK and Cancel" button or "Yes, No, Cancel" buttons. With the "Port Redirect" you can redirect the users output to a different machine or make it seem as though the NetBus attack is coming from a trusted domain. Probably the most dangerous feature of NetBus is the "App Redirect" feature. With this you can redirect any application to any TCP/IP port. As an example they use cmd.exe to port 100. By doing this you can telnet into the host and run a command prompt directly on your computer. Just imagine the havoc that could reap with that (format C: for example). One of my favorites is "Sound System". When you click on that button, if the host computer has a microphone connected to it, you can listen in on any sounds or conversations that are going on in the room as well as record them. Of course NetBus also has a keystroke recorder Amanda is not the only one worried about these things. ,<< her accusations, insinuations and badgering of me were and are way out of line and based completely in falsehood.>> You know if she had accused me of same I would have explained why this wasn't so and be done with it. Had you been as innocent as claimed [ I pass no judgement one way or the other as I don't have all the facts ]and done the same I suspect that you would have heard the end of it long ago. But instead what she got was constant ridicule and egging her on. Mostly in third party posts. Truth is many on these threads don't want this to end. <<And you supported her in all of this on this thread.>> What I have found distasteful is the hypocrisy of the third party ridicule while claiming to be the injured party.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (9400)	4/16/2000 1:44:00 PM
From: Edwarda	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12810

JXM, the bizarre inclusion of you is one of the things that made me suspicious of--at the very least--the reality base. I have said this privately and I'll say it publicly and I sincerely hope that pezz reads it: You and I know each other aside from the threads on SI and you are the last person to participate in the sort of thing that lorrie has thrown at you as an accusation! Actually, if you thought she were really in trouble, despite her accusations, you'd be one of the first people trying to help her!

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (9400)	4/16/2000 10:53:00 PM
From: lorrie coey	Respond to of 12810

Look tom, I don't know you...and you don't know me. "The surveillance stuff can be done on a very limited and focused basis..." Thank-you for saying so. "However, the one thing that I have seen her assert that would cause her to be a "target" of surveillance is impossible." The above statement makes no sense to me...care to clarify? "And that is specifically monitoring and filtering for keywords that are sent out over the internet." I do not think that 'keywords' are what caused this to happen...I think that the specific post containing the 'so called keywords' was simply an intimidation attempt. Call it 'playing on perceived paranoia'. It was ineffective. I have not implicated you, and I have not called this a 'conspiracy'. I do however believe that an organized attempt at a personal 'smear' has taken place...It could be unrelated to this site, or it could be related to this site. I have some good ideas about possible motives. Don't take this personally if you have no knowledge of anything untoward. You are not involved, in that case. A.