Server Help :: View topic - Virus Disassembly

Server Help

Trash Talk - Virus Disassembly

D1st0rt - Mon Nov 15, 2004 4:55 pm
Post subject: Virus Disassembly

Found this on slashdot,

http://rozinov.sfs.poly.edu/papers/bagle_analysis_v.1.0.pdf

Its pretty useful in explaining how assembly works for those who don't know, and also goes in depth about counter-virus techniques

SuSE - Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:13 pm
Post subject:

holy shit that piece of crap almost shutdown my computer

I fucking hate PDF's

Solo Ace - Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:19 pm
Post subject:

Gonna save that link for when I'm bored.

SuSE wrote:

I fucking hate PDF's

And, haha, yeah, they're very "PORTABLE"!

Well, I know what they mean by calling it portable, but it's not portable in the way it should be.

Dr Brain - Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:34 pm
Post subject:

Portable as in it doesn't require Microsoft Office 2018 ($1000+) to view.

Anonymous - Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:37 pm
Post subject:

.txt all the way.

SuSE - Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:57 pm
Post subject:

txt or html, gebus anything but really old and gigantic PDF's

Cyan~Fire - Mon Nov 15, 2004 8:13 pm
Post subject:

WTF is that? Computers 101 on how to combat a virus?

Mine GO BOOM - Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:59 am
Post subject:

SuSE wrote:

holy shit that piece of crap almost shutdown my computer

I fucking hate PDF's

Adobe Speed Up

Quote:

http://www.tnk-bootblock.co.uk/prods/misc/
Adobe Reader SpeedUp is a simple application that was created to help make the loading time of Adobe's Acrobat/Reader software bearable for everyday use. AR SpeedUp only needs to be used once (a process taking only a few seconds) and then your 'Reader will be transformed forever. There are also some tweaking options available. "w00t!", as the young kids say.

SuSE - Tue Nov 16, 2004 3:20 am
Post subject:

I already have almost all the plugins disabled.

50% Packetloss - Tue Nov 16, 2004 3:51 am
Post subject:

Thanks Distort.

Smong - Tue Nov 16, 2004 3:53 am
Post subject:

I suppose the only good thing about pdf is the viewer has anti-alias fonts, it renders faster than postscript, it supports a nested table of contents (although I rarely see manuals and ebooks using this feature) and you can embed images in it.

SuSE - Tue Nov 16, 2004 4:57 am
Post subject:

Smong wrote:

...so it's really slow-loading HTML without antialiased fonts?

Font support online is bullshit, sigh.

Anonymous - Tue Nov 16, 2004 6:03 am
Post subject:

maybe.....

Smong - Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:04 pm
Post subject:

Are you saying html is postscript? Because some of my teachers are distributing their notes in .ps files and I can see the progress meter trying to load about 20-30 pages in 5 seconds, that's only slightly faster than the start-up time of firefox.

SuSE - Tue Nov 16, 2004 4:51 pm
Post subject:

No, I'm saying postscript and PDF are both inferior to HTML.

Dr Brain - Tue Nov 16, 2004 5:30 pm
Post subject:

Wrong. HTML is for displaying webpages. HTML layout is quite limiting.

PDF and PS are typesetting formats. They exist for the puprose of displaying text, symbols (that HTML cannot display) and pictures EXACTLY where the author wants them on the page.

You cannot write a professional product manual in HTML. These, however, *are* frequently written in PDF files.

I use PDF files for displaying math symbols. I'd like to see HTML try to display "The inverse Laplace transform of the definite integral from s to infinity of one over rho". That's something that's quite possible in TeX and PDFs (postscript too, but I don't work with it).

HTML and PDFs serve very different functions, and they are both very good at what they do. HTML does web pages. PDF does typesetting. HTML is inferior in typesetting. PDF is inferior in hypertext display.

Dr Brain - Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:22 pm
Post subject:

For example:

CypherJF - Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:37 pm
Post subject:

ya brain is right about the PDF... it's a desktop publishing tool allowing you to set objects, etc. easily...

However, I'm now uneasy knowing that there is a PoC of having PDF read files off of your harddrive, :/

Mine GO BOOM - Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:25 am
Post subject:

Dr Brain wrote:

You cannot write a professional product manual in HTML. These, however, *are* frequently written in PDF files.

Wrong. Most are written as some form of TeX, and then just outputted to what ever formats the author wants.

Dr Brain - Wed Nov 17, 2004 7:30 am
Post subject:

I doubt that very much. I'm sure a few are, but I believe the rest are written in some kind of PDF GUI.

Cyan~Fire - Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:59 am
Post subject:

http://www.w3.org/Math/

Mozilla supports it.

CypherJF - Wed Nov 17, 2004 12:14 pm
Post subject:

I worked for a math textbook author, there were several stages of manuscripts. Early, rough drafts where done w/ MS Word + Equation Editor, they would then be typed up onto quark (if im thinking right) which then would be converted to JPG and PDF files.

SuSE - Wed Nov 17, 2004 12:54 pm
Post subject:

Book publishing is not exactly what we're talking about.

I'm saying if you're motherfucking giving people information via a motherfucking website, why not fucking make all your information available ACTUALLY in the website instead of being a lazy motherfucker that uses PDF's instead.

I mean there are fucking PDF to HTML convertors out there if you're so fucking retard you can't use a motherfucking WYSIWYG editor. Gebus...lazy fucking twat-ass bitches.

CypherJF - Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:11 pm
Post subject:

I'm just saying that PDF's are used simply for the fact that not all characters can be converted to HTML.. Meh! Or w/o the need of special font's, and/or plugins. Hence the MathML - www.w3c.org

SuSE - Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:17 pm
Post subject:

CypherJF wrote:

I'm just saying that PDF's are used simply for the fact that not all characters can be converted to HTML.. Meh! Or w/o the need of special font's, and/or plugins. Hence the MathML - www.w3c.org

...you just contradicted yourself

Dr Brain - Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:21 pm
Post subject:

How? MathML is not HTML.

And even MathML has the same basic positioning problem as HTML. A problem that PDF, PS and other typesetting formats exist to SOLELY solve.

CypherJF - Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:40 pm
Post subject:

Exactly; MathML piggy backs on HTML to embed a plguin; it is not HTML itself.

SuSE - Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:44 pm
Post subject:

Many browsers do have positioning problems, but HTML does not.

Even if you don't include stuff like MathML as HTML, there are these things called IMAGES. If you want you can even put the TeX equivalent of any equations displayed as images in the alt or title.

Mine GO BOOM - Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:28 pm
Post subject:

SuSE wrote:

...you just contradicted yourself

...and you just creamed yourself.

PDF has its place. I'd rather look at a pdf copy of a manual for a router than an HTML version of the manual. But if I was reading over how to install ASSS, I'd rather be looking at a HTML page with pictures than a PDF.

Different type of information is best presented in different ways.

Solo Ace - Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:37 pm
Post subject:

Creamed?

Dr Brain - Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:44 pm
Post subject:

SuSE wrote:

Many browsers do have positioning problems, but HTML does not.

HTML doesn't give writers pixel precice positioning. This is a basic requirement when typesetting.

So, using my definition of problem a few posts ago that you replied to, yes, HTML does have positioning "problems". However, one of the goals of HTML was to *not* allow pixel precice positioning, for reasons of portability.

CypherJF - Wed Nov 17, 2004 4:33 pm
Post subject:

Yeah this topic has gone way off course

...

SuSE - Wed Nov 17, 2004 5:39 pm
Post subject:

Give me something to precisely position and I will.

Cyan~Fire - Wed Nov 17, 2004 10:03 pm
Post subject:

Can anybody say style="position: absolute"?

Mine GO BOOM - Wed Nov 17, 2004 10:21 pm
Post subject:

Can anybody say IE doesn't always listen to HTML?

Dr Brain - Wed Nov 17, 2004 10:37 pm
Post subject:

Erm, cyan, that's not HTML. That's Cascading Style Sheets.

Akai, in HTML, you cannot easily position something one inch from the right edge of the printed page (and what size paper, might we ask?). But that doesn't matter, because HTML isn't supposed to specify that kind of stuff. That would only break the pages at different resolutions.

Yes, HTML can be twisted to do typesetting if you do 10-15 times as much work as it would take in a real typesetting format.

But, PDFs can perform as web pages too. You can have links inside them. But it would take a lot of work to make a web page in a PDF instead of taking the easy way and doing it in HTML.

An analogy, if I may: An electric screwdriver and a tablesaw. Yes, you *can* use a tablesaw to put screws into wood. Yes, you *can* use a screwdriver to cut wood. God help the fool that would, though.

SuSE - Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:42 am
Post subject:

I say God help the fool that doesn't realize if you're at a website, the information may as well be in HTML (or HTML and CSS and MathML, etc for you psychos out there).

Any stuff that PDF can possibly handle more easily than a website will eventually be a nonissue. The W3 and co are dumb, but progress is inevitable.

Cyan~Fire - Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:28 am
Post subject:

Dr Brain wrote:

Erm, cyan, that's not HTML. That's Cascading Style Sheets.

The argument here is not that PDFs are inferior to anal-retentive pure HTML. The argument is that PDFs are inferior to what you can do with HTLM, which obviously includes CSS, since both HTML and CSS are completely inter-dependant.

lp_street_soldier - Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:04 am
Post subject:

http://www.stopie.com STOP IE!

Visit this website

Dr Brain - Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:07 am
Post subject:

Alright. Go ahead, make a web page that will print exactly what I had in that PDF (including page number).

We can ignore the fact that all browsers will add their own little header and footer if you like, though that is an important fact to consider when making a web printable manual.

Gravitron - Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:24 am
Post subject:

OMFG! IT"S A FIFTY MB IMAGE FILE!!! AAAAAH RUN FOR THE HILLS!

In addition,
There ain't nothing HTML can't fix by the use of CSS, SSI, good old fashion frames and not to mention, a better XML or importing word/excel into the webpage.
WTFEver, you're all whiners who run winXP, down with you.
And speaking of which, you want porting? How about porting to a different media? I like having my output in hard copy.
Try printing those 50MBs of PDF manuals, then try printing the same number of pages from HTML.
'Nuff said.

P.S.
Where's the thread about the virus disassembly?

===============================
B.L.I.S.S.
Better Larger Infantry Server Software.
Coming Q2 '06.
===============================

lp_street_soldier - Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:28 am
Post subject:

Go home.

Dr Brain - Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:37 am
Post subject:

lp_street_soldier wrote:

Go home.

hypocrite

CypherJF - Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:53 am
Post subject:

Shuddup all of ya. Let's get back to talking about PDF's and HTML

SuSE - Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:20 pm
Post subject:

Dr Brain wrote:

Alright. Go ahead, make a web page that will print exactly what I had in that PDF (including page number).

http://unserious.com/muffins.xml

91% smaller
view it on the site you get it from
no extra application needed (to use or load)
easily make it linked to other websites, add scripts, etc, blah blah

Dr Brain wrote:

We can ignore the fact that all browsers will add their own little header and footer if you like, though that is an important fact to consider when making a web printable manual.

For Firefox, File > Print Preview, Page Setup > Margins & Header/Footer > Headers & Footers (set all to --blank--)

50% Packetloss - Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:16 pm
Post subject:

I got an error message telling me that I needed the fonts that you used, suse. GG.

SuSE - Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:33 pm
Post subject:

Did it display?

Dr Brain - Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Post subject:

Same error here. It displayed most of it, but not all.

SuSE - Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:47 pm
Post subject:

Huh, I'll have to pinpoint the problem. I have a lot of fonts, but I never personally installed any particular "math fonts".

You go to the mozilla font page?

One comp I tried it on gave the error, but still displayed it all.

Cyan~Fire - Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:37 pm
Post subject:

Comparing the two, they look the same (with error message but nothing done about it) except that you have '8' instead of 's', SuSE.

SuSE - Fri Nov 19, 2004 5:20 pm
Post subject:

lol fixed

so, you get the error message but it displays the proper characters?

doc gets some characters?

meh, I blame this entirely on the lack of good support for dynamic fonts - oddly enough it probably wouldn't be a problem for IE _if_ IE didn't need something extra to support mathml anyways

so no problem once those hacks get dynamic fonts working, until then I'll still prefer downloading a few fonts over Acrobat, waiting for it to load and losing so much of the bonuses of a website

Dr Brain - Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:05 pm
Post subject:

In addition to the s, You're using a p, not a rho.

And the stuff isn't really in the same place printed. (NOTE: I didn't print it out, I looked at print preview)

SuSE - Sat Nov 20, 2004 1:42 am
Post subject:

it's just a p to me, I can make it a rho if you like

if you like I can make it a peacock

it's the same place printed based on Firefox default margins

Anonymous - Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:39 am
Post subject:

This ussually is the resonposinble for causing font error - download font messages of sorts.

[meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"]

When I make pages in a tool like frontpage or do a save as on a website, since I'm at Israel it sets the encoding to the charset of hebrew (windows), causing anyone who wish to view it to be "asked politely" (not so by IE) by the browser to download the conforming charset fonts.

Technicalities...*shrug*

Cyan~Fire - Sun Nov 21, 2004 7:17 pm
Post subject:

It shouldn't have been a charset problem because SuSE used the HTML character codes, not a specific charset.

SuSE - Sun Nov 21, 2004 8:10 pm
Post subject:

it's just new is all

(plus the lack of dynamic font support - never going to stop being pissed about that)

Dr Brain - Sun Nov 21, 2004 9:33 pm
Post subject:

The error messages proved my basic point. PDF has its place, and it complements HTML.

SuSE - Sun Nov 21, 2004 10:15 pm
Post subject:

...no it doesn't

It proves this is somewhat newly supported by moz, that the web needs a dynamic font standard and that you may need to download a few fonts (as opposed to a PDF viewer).

Cyan~Fire - Mon Nov 22, 2004 4:40 pm
Post subject:

Wow.

Non-supported != Nonexistant.

SuSE - Mon Nov 22, 2004 4:53 pm
Post subject:

...what's that mean? You using IE?

Cyan~Fire - Mon Nov 22, 2004 7:53 pm
Post subject:

Obviously not.

I'm amazed at Brain's opinion that if IE doesn't support it, then it "doesn't exist" and you need some 3rd-party slow-as-crap program to do the same thing less efficiently.

SuSE - Mon Nov 22, 2004 8:01 pm
Post subject:

Heh. Pretty much the _only_ thing I like about IE is that it has a solution for dynamic fonts. Other than that, generally if IE supports it, it's bad.