MSBlast.exe - What is it?

[Guest WorkingStiff]

>Why are you so quick to judge other people?>>I got the virus but I just got a new XP machine less than 3>days ago. I was in the process of downloading the updates>when the virus hit. It takes awhile for 35MEG PLUS worth of>"critical" updates to install over 56KPS.>>Not all of us live in an area that supports DSL, or has good>broadband service.>You're tripping. Using your logic, antivirus software should never release updates because according to you its "sloppy workmanship allowed them in the first place."Any reasonably savvy computer user ought to know that the absolutely first things to do when using a new computer is to check the manufacturers' websites for BIOS and driver updates; install antivirus software, and install any operating system updates.>>If this "security risk" were so freaking HUGE, why didn't microsoft use the "hole" to patch it in the first place. They could have exploited the exact same hole to run a patch which would have fixed anybody on the web.<

[Guest nutcase]

>Thanks for the report, although grim, it helps me find a>solution. Really dissapointed as you can see my virus>definitons are up to date and I have not turned off the virus>software.>>>>http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/30059.jpg>You do NOT have the lastest viridefinitions. latest definitions are 8/11/2003. manually run liveupdate on your Norton AV.Norton do also have a msblast removaltool on their site.Jan Roar R

[Bray 1]

>And don't come to me blah blah blah about how complex Windows>is. You don't see Mac OS getting viruses. It's equally as>complex as Windows, nor do you see Linux, or Solaris getting>pegged by these bugs.>Things can always be better. The reason Mac OS and linux do not appear to get viruses (cause they do) is that those systems are not as widely used as MS OS. Were Mac or Linux more widely used these A**holes would write and target them !! Its a question of numbers for them and how many people they can harm..Bill

[Guest wathomas777]

First of all, you are wrong, of the 35MB, none of it is from the Nvidia update,Second of all You never addressed the question of sloppy coding. Windows is more prone to attacks then linux, unix, solaris, and MacOS PUT TOGETHR. For the most part their OS are more stable and less prone to attack.It was MICROSOFT'S decision to bundle all the "extra" software within their OS that causes so many dependancies. If the security risk was deemed HIGH enough, they could have easily exploited the hole to install a softfix. Yes, some people may get their panties in a wad, but it beats having to clean up afterwords.I understand it is my responsibility to keep my "system" updated, but after how many "updates" do we have to suffer until Microsoft takes a bit of responsibility as well? Tell me ONE other consumer item that requires the same continual update process. I understand owning a car, or pool or boat, that requires preventive maintenance,But this is an item that was broken to begin with."Congratulations on the purchase of your new 27 inch Microsoft TV. From time to time, various components on your TV may be prone to failure, or may inexplicity unlock your front door.".Microsoft will offer free of charge, replacement parts, however, these parts must be requested by you. To safeguard your TV and the rest of your household, we suggest that you contact Microsoft on a weekly basis, to see what portion of your TV you will have to repair next."Please. I fully understand it is MY responsibility to keep my system updated. When is it MICROSOFT'S responsibility to stop writing sloppy code?

[Guest WorkingStiff]

THe only thing you omitted was calling the company MICRO$OFT.So why don't you switch to Linux? Is someone holding a gun to your head and compelling you to run this "sloppy code?"

[ronzie 21]

It is a virus as described in another post.On my machine I have Black-Ice PC Protection, a firewall package that also contains an application monitor. Several times in the last couple of days, it blocked remote RPC attempts which are Remote Procedure Calls where an external user attempts to run tasks on my machine. It also would block any unauthorized (by me) program attempting to get on the net.Antivirus programs scan content of files during download, decompression, etc, but they do not scan network traffic where malicious attempts using network services can do damage. I have a trojan detector app, a firewall, and NAV all running and all have performed well and kept my system clean. In fact, I just noted a sub-7 port scan which looks for an installed sub-7 trojan to start getting stored keystrokes off my box.Some days are quite and some are really vicious.

[Guest wathomas777]

Well, since we are in a Flight Simulator Forum, I am finding that to use a Flight Simulator, I am pretty much stuck with Windows. The only other one on the market is X-Plane, and It does not provide me with the features I require/desire in a Flight Sim.So although no one is holding a "gun" to my head, since FS2004 is not released in a Linux version, I'm pretty much stuck.And I do agree with the M$ bit.

[ORN 1]

>The only other one on the market is X-Plane, and It>does not provide me with the features I require/desire in a>Flight Sim.Well there is a sim for Mac, FlyII. Does it beat FS9? Do I know how to get it? Is it worth the effort? No idea!By the way, My mac is 2 years old. I counted 5 security updates over those two years. (You can choose to download the updates in case you have to make a new install, is that possible in Windows please tell me how!)Today I installed 21, TWENTYONE, security updates and I don

[Guest]

>I also want to know why you feel it is THE CUSTOMER'S FAULT.>Quite frankly I find Bill Gates latest "security initiative" a>bit offensive. Now while it is good that these "fixes" are>being found, I want to know what sloppy workmanship allowed>them in the first place?It is no one's fault but the person who released the worm. Don't try to blame customers or "Bill Gates" (who doesn't write the software).>And don't come to me blah blah blah about how complex Windows>is. You don't see Mac OS getting viruses. It's equally as>complex as Windows, nor do you see Linux, or Solaris getting>pegged by these bugs.If you know of a more secure operating system than a well-maintained Windows XP/2003, let's see it. Linux/Unix (several distros were tested, and all rated LESS secure than XP and Server 2003) are not as secure as you would think, unless properly maintained. They only seem secure because they have low market infiltration, are not a prime target, and are most often well-maintained (by people who know their shiznit). MacOS has low market share and so are not a prime target. And if "clean install" security is what you are looking for, XP and 2003 are still more secure, considering that most people who install Linux leave firewall security at the default level. >The truth is, if a car manufacturer were to put out an>automobile that had as many "critical fixes" that Microsoft>had, it wouldn't be on the road.I suppose with your reasoning, you don't consider auto recalls as "critical fixes".>Now the "author" of MSBlast.exe is the villian here, but when>will our antiquated consumer protection laws take up this>issue. When it comes to software, consumers have little or no>legal recourse.What are we going to do? The hacker goes to jail. What more do you want?>It's Ironic, I can have a little old lady win a reward for>"damages" because SHE spilled coffee in her lap. Yet a worm>that exploits a software deficiency that allows an attacker>SYSTEM level access, is not "Microsoft's" problem?If someone broke a leg because Microsoft's software popped up and told the person to jump off a roof, then you could sue Microsoft. As it stands, MS has no control over people who scan every line of code for the smallest problem. If they did the same to Unix, Linux, or MacOS, they would have the same issues.>If this "security risk" were so freaking HUGE, why didn't>microsoft use the "hole" to patch it in the first place. They>could have exploited the exact same hole to run a patch which>would have fixed anybody on the web. If asked why, they could>say, we discovered a problem, and we felt that it was to vital>to risk even one person getting infected, so we used the>"hole" to install the fix. BINGO,Invasion of privacy, hacking, trespassing. Are three reasons good enough?>But no, they post it on a website, and wash their hands of the>whole deal.>>I'm sorry, I understand it's my responsibility to upgrade my>system, but when Microsoft finds "holes" on a weekly basis,>something is fundamentally wrong.But when your car breaks down, you PAY to fix it. And driving a broken down or damaged car is life threatening. At least MS offers updates for free (unlike Red Hat Linux) and releases them as soon as they are found.

[Guest chezz]

Try FLY2 for MAC. chris

[Guest JC2]

It's not that easy. This bug was a buffer overrun bug. These are EXTREMELY difficult to find and equally difficult to keep out of code. Programmers tend to understand this while non-programmers tend not to. The fact that Microsoft is patching these problems so quickly is a credit to them in my opinion.As to the Apple / Linux deal, there have been many buffer overruns discovered in each. You don't see much press on them because the installed user base is so small. If you do a bit of research, you'll find that Linux is easily the most insecure OS available today, but if you don't wear a target, well...Jim