Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary. Now with pictures!
- Dustin Cook
May 16, 2007, 8:07 pm
rate this thread
"BugShit" isn't "BugHunter", 4Q. Who's dancing?
yet it took you 2 hours or so? Hehhe..
Oh, the analysis wasn't as thorough as I could have been. I focused on a
few problems and differences between our work, not all of them.
I'm distorting nothing. I haven't authored a destructive program since
2000; And everyone including you knows it. Your trying to use what I've
done in the past to say that I'm the same now. You just don't want to
face the facts I got tired of doing stupid vx things and decided to do
something useful. I believed you originally called me a turncoat for
this. I don't see myself as a traitor 4Q, I do not target viruses, I have
no interest nor desire in viral detection. Worms are a subset (depending
on who you ask) of viruses, but I don't see them as a real viruses, and
therefore, I don't see my detecting them is turncoating. You do. We
virus and malware? You make as much sense as the statement "new and
I already admitted to what I've done, 7+ years ago. Get over it. Big Bad
Raid doesn't owe you a damn thing!
Nice try. You provided functional source code and an easy to follow flow
chart. you went to the other side of the line, jerk.
When my source code was published, it wasn't functional without some
effort on the persons part trying to compile it.
Give it up. A totally unfair comparison. Nothing you do is without
malicious intent. You are not in the same league as those individuals,
your nothing compared to them. Please don't insult their intelligence by
thinking anyone should compare you or your actions to that of theirs.
And why don't you tell everyone about a collision hash with md5?
Nevermind, they can click the link.
In what possible way at this point in time is the program known as
BugHunter malicious 4Q? Can you defend the claim and the justification
for md5ing it to your program?
Considering your shelling to md5 for the actual math work, I'd expect
even you to be able to write something like what you did. :)
The code was supposed to demonstrate the basics for what BugHunter is
doing, but it fails to do so. Your script is so generically natured, it's
no better than Dr Sollys perfect scanner.
And still as inefficient?
Re-Read what I said. Nevermind, I'll write it simpler. You will require
two unique md5 signatures to validate the fact file a and file b are the
same minus a couple of random byte changes. IE: As I said, *Your* program
will *miss* anything that's even slightly different than another, even if
they are the same. In the spyware industry, your as useful as pcbutts.
A single md5 database checksummer isn't used in the industry for a reason
4Q, and this is one of them. You do not understand how the BugHunter
program works, and this is painfully obvious.
c: typo, sorry. See Above concerning who can't read.
Anything to dispute in the paragraph? :)
Wait.. Aren't you whining because I use LOCATE? Yes, yes you are. Why can
you use it then? :)
It was designed as something that was supposed to be similiar to
BugHunter, for a comparison. Your program isn't even close. Your
algorithms (heheheh) aren't even close.
It's very sloppy and extremely generic. Slightly above pcbutts coding
ability I'm sure, but probably not much.
Sure, if I was using a checksum list. But then, I'd waste time like you
and checksum every file... You really don't have a clue how it works..
Just so you know, Some individuals reading along do know exactly how
BugHunter works, so your only embarrasing yourself now. *grin*
BugHunter isn't a simple crc checker. And I wouldn't recommend someone
use a simple crc checker in any security program, either. Tripwire isn't
a malware scanner.
4Q, The file system is transparent to the program.
As a fellow programmer? (heh) you should have known that. I'm not
accessing data on a sector or direct hardware level, so the filesystem
doesn't matter. If you can see the drive in dos/console, BugHunter can
too. It's as simple as that.
Actually, if I really wanted to support long filenames, I could. Extended
interrupts do provide access to them. Just ask Art. He's written a few
things in QuickBasic which display and access long filenames in dos fine.
That's been available since windows95 you know, Long filename support for
dos programs that wanted to bother.
As I don't access the hard disk via the bios, why would I need to access
the ntfs file system directly? :)
You keep calling it a pile of crap, yet it continues to get awards and
nice reviews and support. It's still one of the fastest (if not the
fastest) scanners available, for dos or windows. I've corrected every
issue reported concerning it too. In what way is it a pile of crap?
I don't recall any of my virus code having an interface, like BugHunter
does. Are you going to accuse me of stealing my own code now too? :)
The fact my code is written/commented well enough that it can be adapted
for use in other programs is a good thing, I'm sorry your such a sloppy
programmer that yours is that app specific. If you can't reuse some of
your code, you can't code. Period.
Kadaitchman got his ass handed to him trying to correct my code.
Remember? I posted working code, his corrections resulted in non
functional code. He backpeddled ever since. He did so poorly, his code
wouldn't compile if you tried; And I didn't have to try to know this,
despite his backpeddling claim saying otherwise.
Your going to need more reliable witnesses on your side, He's a chump.
The fact asic isn't something your too familiar with isn't a valid excuse
to defend such poor programming. Remember, you invited this by trying to
pass that pos code of yours off as something even remotely close to
BugHunter. If that's the best imitation you can do for me, I'm
disappointed. Your a lousy fan.
Heh, BugHunter is by no means a pinto. Only a moron would think of yours
as the Mustang. Source code isn't available, and as a programmer, you
shouldn't need it to figure out how the program runs. Unless, your just
not as good as your trying to pass yourself off to be.
So you have no way of backing the statement up then? I didn't think so.
You couldn't back up the initial claim that it was already a trojan, so I
didn't really expect a good defense on this claim of yours either. I was
hoping you'd respond in a fashion such as this to show everyone else what
your real intentions are. As if everyone hasn't figured you out by now.
Please do. Also note,
4Q's website: nothing useful to be found.
My website: a program which will remove over 8,500 malicious executables
Does it really take a rocket scientist to see whats useful and whats a
waste of webspace?
Author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool - v2.2c