Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Osama Captured (Possible Virus Hoax)

This is topic Osama Captured (Possible Virus Hoax) in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003163

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-23-2004, 01:12 PM:

Just posted on the Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMAI) listserver, noting a ploy to have the unsuspecting user link to a suspect website. (Do NOT open the link):

quote:
I found multiple copies of this e-mail in my inbox when I logged on this morning. Since I had already listened to the morning news broadcasts I knew this must be a hoax and did not attempt to click on the link. I presume this is someone's idea of a clever way to get people to link into spam. I thought some of the sex ads I receive were bad, but if this truly is spam it represents a new low in my opinion.

Charles Hopkins
Senior Administrator, Planning and Special Projects
UCLA Film and Television Archive

-----Original Message-----
From: Elbert Nix [mailto:KWESOMGW@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 6:57 AM
To: wkramer@ucla.edu
Subject: Osama Bin Laden Captured

Just got this from CNN Osama Bin Laden has just been captured! A video and some pictures have been released. Goto the link below for pictures, I will update the page with the video as soon as I can:
http://220.95.231.54/pics/badlink God Bless America! (DO NOT OPEN THIS LINK!!!)

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-23-2004, 02:05 PM:

How is this a virus? I got one of these e-mails this morning. I knew it was a hoax, but being that I have a Mac and am completely invunerable, I clicked the link anyway to see what it would link to. It was a teeny tiny ad for Viagra. That's it. No virus.[av=k]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-23-2004, 02:11 PM:

Maybe that "teeny tiny ad" carried a new virus payload? If you're unlucky, it affects MACs too.

Posted by Nick Engstrom (Member # 2100) on 04-23-2004, 02:32 PM:

Virii can be imbedded in html now, very rare, but possible.

As well as macs....you mac fanbois crack me up when you say 'we are invulnerable' Thats the biggest load of crap ever...just the other day, they were talking about the latest trojan horse for macs on tech tv. All it takes is time, and people will find holes to get inside your computer.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-23-2004, 02:42 PM:

That trojan horse was supposedly the first Mac OS X virus ever, and it turned out to be a fake. Seriously, I have no virus software running and I have never gotten a virus. What am I doing wrong?[av=d]

PS -- Who the hell spells "boy" as "boi"? Seriously. What the hell?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-23-2004, 02:57 PM:

The issue of security concerning Mac versus PC really must be put into proper context.

The more "religious" fans of the Mac tout the Mac platform's security as evidence of better software programming. Not really. The only reason Mac systems are not harrassed by viruses is the small size of the Mac market. Not enough users to be worth the trouble for malware writers.

That one so-called Mac trojan was never released "into the wild" and was merely an on-paper concept showing a security hole in the MacOS X operating system. Most computer industry experts agree that if the Mac platform held a significantly higher share of the market, say 30% or 40% for example, then there would be A LOT MORE in the way of malware hacks to exploit the Mac.

Another issue that makes Windows a target for malware is all the militant Linux users and their desire to do anything to vandalize and cripple Windows-based machines. Lots of Windows malware is sent into the wild from Linux machines or other UNIX type machines. The game plan is to get Windows users fed up and have them abandon Microsoft and load Linux on their Intel or AMD boxes. Our CPA was trying to convice me to switch our studio's computers to Linux. Just how in the hell am I supposed to emulate two different $4000 programs with hardware dongles under Linux? Huh? I'm not using a platform other than PC or Mac for graphics until ALL my apps are available or fixing to be available under Linux.

But that's never going to happen. Most Linux users don't want to pay for shit. They want it all free. They don't want to support the marketplace. They think anyone working for an established software company should just do their job for free. Maybe they should try doing their own damned jobs for free and try starving on for size.

Adobe tried making a Linux version of FrameMaker and the release was a complete, total failure. Forget about any native Linux versions of Photoshop or any other big Adobe apps. Linux users will just have to stick with emulator programs for those things to run --or try to develop their own free, open source alternatives.

Oh, and since variants of Linux are the most popular choice for web servers, there is a good degree of Linux-based malware floating around in aims to try to steal stuff or vandalize things.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-23-2004, 03:08 PM:

I think Framemaker would be a complete and total failure on ANY platform. I mean come on.... it's Framemaker![av=l] I've never even HEARD of it until your post above. Most UNIX users can probably build web pages by hand anyway, and don't need code-destroying programs like Framemaker, Dreamweaver, Frontpage, etc etc etc.

Anyway I am surprised that no virus authors make Mac viruses just to prove it can be done. That would make the news. They wouldn't infect 99% of the market, but they'd at least prove something. On paper is one thing. Actually doing it is another. Going by Bobby's statement, Macs will be safe forever, because they will never have 35% of the market. They are niche machines.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-23-2004, 03:14 PM:

Yeah, right! All it takes is one half-assed trojan to appear in THREE YEARS and you have a bunch of Windoze people jumping up and down, pointing fingers saying, "SEE! You get viruses too!" Then, when the thing turns out to be a hoax, they keep harping on it even though they know it's not true. (Or haven't gotten reasonably verifiable proof that it exists.)

I'm not talking about your average "Joe Public". I'm talking about people who are supposed to be serious journalists!

Wanna, know what I spent most of the day doing today? Clearing 236 pieces of spyware and adware off of 6 computers in our offices, scanning them for viruses and installing Windoze updates!

It seems like there is a new virus for Windoze every 0.68 seconds!

Posted by Kyle McEachern (Member # 2250) on 04-23-2004, 03:23 PM:

quote: Nick Engstrom
just the other day, they were talking about the latest trojan horse for macs on tech tv

And here we have a prime example of why watching TechTV is a bad idea. As Joe mentioned, this was the *only* trojan that has ever been reported for OSX, and as Bobby mentioned, it did not infect a SINGLE computer in the world. In the past quarter, Apple shipped about 750,000 Macs, and there's 10 million+ (very low estimate) Macs floating around overalls...and yet, not a single Virus/Trojan has been reported as affecting them. Invulnerable? Probably not...but you should admit that they do have a good point.

quote: Bobby Henderson
That one so-called Mac trojan was never released "into the wild" and was merely an on-paper concept showing a security hole in the MacOS X operating system.

So, to summarize...still no public virii for the Mac. After how long?

quote: Bobby
Most computer industry experts agree...

Seriously, if I had a nickel for every time I heard a load of BS come following those five words...

Regardless, if you HONESTLY believe that the ONLY reason there haven't been ANY trojans for the Mac is that 'they don't have enough of a market share', then you don't understand hackers at all. Mac owners are the BIGGEST proponents of 'Look, this is why you should buy a Mac, we don't get trojans!' -- that's a prime target for a hacker, to bring the high-and-mighty down to their knees. Not only that, but since Mac OS X has come out, Apple's market share has been growing...not massively, but consistently. It's not like they're invisible...but for some reason, still...no trojans! I wouldn't blame the apathy of hackers/trojan-writers.

quote: Bobby
Most Linux users don't want to pay for shit. They want it all free.

That, in and of itself, is...well, total BS. It's not that Linux users don't want to pay for ANYTHING, it's that they're not stupid enough to pay $4,000 for TWO programs. Sure, it took time and effort to create those programs, but you know what? If you make a really good program and sell it for $400 (max), you're still going to make money. If they're going to turn into elitist assholes and try to rip people off for four grand for a piece of damned software, then yes, people are going to complain. You think LINUX users are the only ones who are pissed at companies trying to take 4 grand from them for one piece of software? They don't want it for free, they want it for something that's in the realm of being close to something remotely near being affordable.

Don't rip on people just because you a) can't use their platform or b) don't agree with their viewpoints (Like not enjoying getting screwed with their pants on when they try to buy software)...it doesn't strengthen your point.

Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 04-23-2004, 03:26 PM:

Joe-

You don't NEED to know what 'boi' means! If you DO, ask Phil.

[Wink]

fjn
Local294 Ret.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-23-2004, 03:36 PM:

That's what I figured Floyd! [av=m] I guess we know something new about Nick. [Smile]

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 04-23-2004, 03:39 PM:

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-23-2004, 05:16 PM:

Joe--Framemaker has nothing to do with web pages. It's actually an industrial-strength publishing product intended for use when putting together books or other large documentation projects. It's considered to be a very good product. It runs on Win32 and various Unix flavors (AIX and Solaris, at least), and probably on Macs as well. It isn't cheap; last I checked, licenses were in the $1000 range, although it uses concurrent licensing, which means that you pay based on the number of copies in use at a particular time, not the number of copies installed.

Did Adobe ever actually sell a Linux version of Framemaker? I know that they had a beta release at one point, but wasn't aware that they actually tried selling it.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-23-2004, 05:57 PM:

Ah. I just looked up Framemaker on Google and saw references to XML and HTML and I figured that's what it was. Maybe I am thinking of Pagemaker? Either way, since I haven't heard of it, it is crap and has no right to exist anywhere. Period.[av=c]

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 04-23-2004, 07:20 PM:

Since 1998 Apple has been a lot more responsible in the development of their software. Recently benefitting from the inherent security of a UNIX flavoured backend. However, as the number of UNIX and specifically Linux exploits increase, you WILL see an increase in the number of Macintosh.

Of course you can't be ingnorant of the Macintosh platform of worms and virii of the late 80s and 90s. Sohphos: Search MAC At that time Macintosh exploits were often just as destructive as Microsoft platformed PC exploits, and often rampant on Macintosh based networks.

Again though, Apple put forth great effort to combat this during 1998 and beyond delivering a much more secure platform.

Oddly enough, I recently recieved this Macintosh worm (again), Sophos: AplS/Simpsons-A.

quote: Kyle McEachern
Regardless, if you HONESTLY believe that the ONLY reason there haven't been ANY trojans for the Mac is that 'they don't have enough of a market share', then you don't understand hackers at all.

My studies and research in saftey critical and secure systems leave me to believe that it is more of a numbers game -- who can hit the hardest. The development costs of a Macintosh targetted exploit are also higher, further making the platform a disinteresting target.

quote: Kyle McEachern
That, in and of itself, is...well, total BS. It's not that Linux users don't want to pay for ANYTHING, it's that they're not stupid enough to pay $4,000 for TWO programs. Sure, it took time and effort to create those programs, but you know what? If you make a really good program and sell it for $400 (max), you're still going to make money. If they're going to turn into elitist assholes and try to rip people off for four grand for a piece of damned software, then yes, people are going to complain.

It's not that they are elitest assholes, just that they're not idiots. The very nature of their software makes it a high piracy target in proposion to sales, no matter the sale price. The majority of people simply will not pay for something that they know they don't know how to use as effectively as possible.

If Adobe was to sell their software at a lower price point they would be in imminent danger. So would Autodesk, Loftsman, Kinetix (now a part of Autodesk), Microsoft's server product group, and numerous others. Heck even RedHat, who willingly gave away their products now sell them for upwards of $1500.

The fact is that if the software wasn't bundled with the hardware there's an 80% chance that it was pirated, often out of convenience. Lower price points won't remedy that.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-23-2004, 08:34 PM:

quote: Kyle McEachern
It's not that Linux users don't want to pay for ANYTHING, it's that they're not stupid enough to pay $4,000 for TWO programs.

Those two programs I mentioned are professional, trade specific pieces of software. They're not "consumer" titles. Have you ever priced industry-specific software?

My day job is doing electrical sign design. Show me a credible sign design application that doesn't cost $4000 or more. Show me a professional large format RIP program that doesn't run thousands of dollars. Show me 3D CNC routing program that doesn't cost thousands of dollars.

Try running a business doing things like CAD work, 3D animation, digital video production, engineering or graphics oriented manufacturing on "freeware." You will not stay in business long --that is unless you load up on many thousands of dollars worth of pirated warez.

I have no problem with companies like Alias|Wavefront charging upwards of $8,000 for Maya Unlimited or over $20,000 for their AutoStudio app. The problem I have is with cheap assholes who steal that software and then compete against other businesses who made their software investment legally.

Posted by Kyle McEachern (Member # 2250) on 04-23-2004, 09:37 PM:

Bobby, I'm not trying to say that there are only one or two piece of software out there that are outrageously overpriced. I understand that there are a great many.

What it boils down to for me is this. If someone who works a 'normal' hourly-pay job, then for them to get Maya Unlimited, per your example, would cost them nearly a full year of not eating, driving anywhere, buying clothing, or living under a roof. Quite a price for someone who is looking to get involved in an industry.

Again, my point was not that cheaper alternatives to this software exists...simply that this software is, on the whole, priced such that only those who are already succeeding in the given market can afford them, and will therefore continue to excel, given that they have the most cutting-edge software for such applications. These 'cheap assholes' that you speak of are generally people who are simply trying to make a living doing something that they like doing. Half of the time, if they HAD that much money to spare without starving and evicting themselves with such a purchase, they would make it.

Unfortunately for the price-gouging software makers, there is a simple alternative for these horrible, nasty, evil, cheap, mean, gutter-dwelling, bad-smelling, motherless sons-of-bitches that can't afford the $6,000 piece of software...I bet they even use ARIAL! Chances are, MOST businesses that are going to use such software are going to do so legally, because it allows them many advantages, such as better tech support and more likelihood of upgrades working properly. However, for some people, it is just NOT AN OPTION. Perhaps you'd LIKE to keep them out of your industry, but if it's what they love to do, then more power to them.

If this software cost even $750, which is MUCH more affordable to a MUCH greater group of people, I do in fact believe that piracy of such programs would drop. When it's a 'professional, trade-specific piece of software', people much prefer having a legal copy, if it's anywhere within their realm of possibility.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-23-2004, 10:47 PM:

OS2 is to date virus free (probably because few hackers can figure it out)

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-23-2004, 11:08 PM:

To address the Maya situation, Alias|Wavefront has "personal learning editions" of apps like Maya, Alias Studio and Auto Studio free for download. And they have academic pricing for their full operational versions. Good luck on finding schools with certified courses in Maya though.

Even still, Maya is not a piece of consumer computer software. It is priced for businesses and engineered solely for those in business. There is a very limited user base for Maya. The application cost a ton of money to develop and maintain for the SGI, PC and Mac platforms. That cost has to be amortized out across its limited niche market. Alias|Wavefront would lose their shirts if they just sold it for $600 like Adobe Photoshop. They don't have a user base of millions like Photoshop.

Unless you are a pretty successful freelance artist, it would be pretty stupid to drop $8,000 for a commercial license of Maya just to install on a home machine. And you have to be pretty well off to afford the hardware it takes to run Maya at any speed beyond painfully slow. If you can't afford to buy Maya, you'll either have to buy a lower cost 3D program, like Lightwave3D ($1,500) or create artwork that doesn't require a 3D program to get completed. There's lots of professional artists out there who create work only using mainstream apps like Freehand and Illustrator.

quote: Kyle McEachern
These 'cheap assholes' that you speak of are generally people who are simply trying to make a living doing something that they like doing.

Generally, I don't agree with that. Sure, there may be some exceptions. But generally I see two camps when it comes to the warez use trade.

The largest camp is casual computer users who download cracked apps like Maya, Softimage, Studio3D Max, etc., only to collect them and probably hardly ever use them beyond a simple level of curiosity (this is certainly true when they are confronted by the huge learning curve). I really don't have any problem with these folks, because they're really not part of the professional user base in the first place.

The "cheap assholes" of which I speak are people getting paid to do work using illegally obtained software. And that's probably not the only illegal thing they are doing either. Warez makes it a lot easier for one operation to conduct predatory business practices against another, such as severely undercutting a bid and then doing shit work when winning the job.

When it comes to making a living in the graphic design industry, the real legit designers have had to struggle pretty hard over the last decade (especially recently). Standards have dropped horribly and the industry is largely being de-professionalized.

quote: Kyle McEachern
If this software cost even $750, which is MUCH more affordable to a MUCH greater group of people, I do in fact believe that piracy of such programs would drop.

I can't completely agree with that. The most pirated pieces of computer software are all apps that cost well under $750. When it comes to graphics apps, I'm willing to bet the vast majority of installations for apps like Photoshop, Macromedia StudioMX or even CorelDRAW are pirated.

The situation is bad enough that PhotoshopCS has that activiation feature built into the PC version (of course I think that doohickey has already been hacked). Perhaps Adobe figures anyone running the Mac version of Photoshop is running a legit copy from a computer in a graphics business. Hmmm. I have a lot of registered Adobe and Macromedia apps. That might explain why I get a lot of Mac-oriented junk mail. They must think I use a Mac!

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 04-23-2004, 11:37 PM:

From what I've personally seen and read about Alias (one of Canada's top 100 rated companies) I'm amazed that they sell their licenses as low as they do. They certainly are a leader in engineering their products. That certainly isn't cheap to do, but it is what industry is demanding.

They're not in the business of selling software to end users. They're in the business of selling scientifically accurate tools to multi-million dollar corporations. Even still, they do provide their tools, at little to no cost, to users interested in learning how to use them.

As for dropping the price on (any) software, from what I've seen and from what others here at the Software Quality Research Laboratory have found, price has little to do with how much a piece of software is pirated.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-23-2004, 11:58 PM:

$8,000 for Maya Unlimited and $1,999 for Maya Complete may seem expensive for some. But that's a bargain when you consider what Alias PowerAnimator used to cost ($20,000 to $30,000 several years ago).

The one BIG problem I have with the free PLE versions of Alias|Wavefront titles like Maya and AutoStudio is the files created with them are not compatible with their commercial counterparts. That really sucks. Who wants to spend 80 hours on a 3D Maya PLE illustration only to find out later you can't reuse that same file whenever you're able to buy a commercial license?

I'm more tempted to sign up for a couple art classes at Cameron University to quality for an academic discount for Maya Complete or Unlimited. Still, the hardware required to run it productively costs a fortune. That's really what cuts out most end users and relegates Maya strictly to business use only. In the end, when I buy my new computer around the end of the year, I just may get all my Adobe apps upgraded to the full StudioCS and Digital Video Collection editions instead.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 04-24-2004, 12:01 AM:

Apparently the incompatibility was introduced to stop (as in it was happening) people from buying a single full license and then using a bunch of free/cheap licenses for the majority of their developers. I can't say I blame them.

As a user it wouldn't really bother me much since it requires that the employer pay me for doing something on their full version rather than having me use stuff I did at home on the free/cheap version.

Of course the incompatibility does have its downsides for some users, but Alias has to look out for them self.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-24-2004, 02:43 AM:

Bobby, Maya screams along on my Mac. Really fast. Though I have yet to figure out how to render a damn thing.... or create an object of any kind....[av=a]

Posted by Chris Liczbinski (Member # 1957) on 04-24-2004, 03:05 AM:

I always believed that industry specific software is high priced because the market for it is so small. The program writers more than likely spent years in school paying high tuition and had to move to an area with a high cost of living (California etc) just to be within a competitive market with many "big names". I met a few talented "senior software engineers" while going to college and I can see why they would demand a high salary for their products, these highly specialized applications are not something you can type up in BASIC or JAVA in a few hours!

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-24-2004, 05:42 AM:

Check the prices on high-end CAD software sometime. It will make this Maya thing seem very cheap.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-24-2004, 11:02 AM:

Here's the fundamental thing: if you are making money using a certain piece of software, you (or rather your business) should have paid to use it legally. After all, you're not doing your job for free either.

That's the fundamental problem about making software go open source, it's just a lot of people looking to get something for nothing.

The same thing largely goes for the proliferation of malware. Just some criminals (the word "hacker" or "cracker" is just too polite) trying to steal something from someone else.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 04-24-2004, 11:34 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
PS -- Who the hell spells "boy" as "boi"? Seriously. What the hell?

I agree. That's teh ghey.

Shouldn't this Osama thing be in the POLITICAL FORUM? [Razz]

=TMP=