Religious websites are three times riskier than porn sites for malware

[ryanb2145]

"What I do care about is those who cite fallacy as proof of their argument. Citing fallacy

results in empty arguments; unless, of course, those who cite fallacy really are ignorant,

and there was a study done over 10 years ago that provided evidence that the ignorant have

no clue that they are, in fact, ignorant."

The flip side to that is, of course, if an argument is weak, or at some point weak, citing

fallacy tends to be the quickest and easiest way to show how weak it is or at least can

be...If I had to guess, that's why these ignorant people you speak of in the study you

didn't cite the source for do so... Isn't that what many agnostics and atheists do to

people of faith anyways?

"Regardless of the power behind the malware, it is the site owner's responsibility to keep

the site clean. It's pretty trivial, you know, especially if you are hosting the site on

your own machine - think free virus/malware scanners. And if the site is hosted on some

third-party server, then it is the responsibility of the site owner to ensure that the

third-party hosting agent keeps their servers clean"

I agree. Not every volunteer as well as some "professionals" don't know or care enough to

do that, however.

". If not, it is still the responsibility of the site owner that malware was placed on the

site by the evil Devil."

I do like humor. However if I remember correctly, christians don't actually think the devil

has a computer himself to load malware onto the internet. They believe malicious intent is

in man, obviously, it's just that the malicious or "evil" intent helps the "devil" in its

own intent or cause.... Just clearing that up because for some, not saying you, can be just

as ignorant on either side of the argument.

"Whether you like it or not, this is casting aspersions on religious sites and putting them

in the ranks of the pirate sites."

This appears to be addressed to a different type of person but I'll reply to it anyways. If

I had to guess on a likely cause for this here's what I'd guess: Pirates don't care for the

malware in fact many support it. Religious websites, which are more than likely run by

volunteers than anything, are simply not as aware. They would not be prosecuted in the same

way that maybe msn.com would be if it started loading malware onto people's computers. I'd

bet money that a good majority of religious websites don't even have the popularity that

would be required for many of the site owners to give a **** anyways. I don't see verisign

shutting them down either.

"A better reason that I think religious cites are full of malware is because the owners

think that the divine would never infect them - besides the owners having little technical

knowledge."

religious sites* Anyways, what do you actually think is more likely? That they believe that

they can just pray for food to cook itself or that they might actually have to cook it? But

now that I've asked that question to not only for you, but myself, I realize you must have

been kidding.


Apologies for the double post. The line spacing got all messed up
/retry

 

[captaincranky]

"What I do care about is those who cite fallacy as proof of their argument. Citing fallacy

results in empty arguments; unless, of course, those who cite fallacy really are ignorant,

and there was a study done over 10 years ago that provided evidence that the ignorant have

no clue that they are, in fact, ignorant."

Ryan, I enjoy a good rant as much as the next person, possibly more. With that said, let me try to teach you how to get the most mileage from a rant. You should encapsulate the sentence or paragraph which you're responding to in quotes. In a forum context, this is the most effect way to construct an exchange of opinion.

For example, Let's say, I believe your first paragraph was nonsense, and you were talking in circles. I'm going to respond to it individually. I open the reply in another tab, then copy and paste just the paragraph into my reply, thus

"What I do care about is those who cite fallacy as proof of their argument. Citing fallacy

results in empty arguments; unless, of course, those who cite fallacy really are ignorant,

and there was a study done over 10 years ago that provided evidence that the ignorant have

no clue that they are, in fact, ignorant."

Then I say, "Ryan", this is BS, you're trolling.....

In any event, you can break down a post into sections, then copy and paste the originator's quote box, ahead of the segment you'd like to respond to. Then you can type the close quote instruction, "[/quote]", (without the quote marks. Ironic, I know.) to close the section and then reply to just that.

You can also use (") icon in the menu bar to quote without personal reference.

Just select the text you want to quote, then click the icon

Apologies for the double post. The line spacing got all messed up
/retry

Yeah, I hear you with that. This server has developed a couple of interesting quirks of late

 

[SNGX1275]

let me try to teach you how to get the most mileage from a rant. You should encapsulate the sentence or paragraph which you're responding to in quotes. In a forum context, this is the most effect way to construct an exchange of opinion.

For example, Let's say, I believe your first paragraph was nonsense, and you were talking in circles. I'm going to respond to it individually. I open the reply in another tab, then copy and paste just the paragraph into my reply, thus
Then I say, "Ryan", this is BS, you're trolling.....

In any event, you can break down a post into sections, then copy and paste the originator's quote box, ahead of the segment you'd like to respond to. Then you can type the close quote instruction, "[ /quote ]", (without the quote marks. Ironic, I know.) to close the section and then reply to just that.

Actually, I do it a different, but equally as effective way.

Simply hit the reply, which quotes the entire post. Then you can find what you want to argue on (delete stuff before it as necessary) and then at the end of the statement you dispute, simply put a [ /quote ] there (remove the spaces though). Then find the next part that you want to debate, and go up to the very beginning of your reply box and copy that portion, in this case it is: [ quote="captaincranky, post: 1175721, member: 99521" ] again removing the spaces after [ and before ].

You can also use (") icon in the menu bar to quote without personal reference.

That works too, but its less personal.

 

[captaincranky]

Actually, I do it a different, but equally as effective way.

We're saying the same thing, it unfortunately is a bit more difficult to explain in a fully coherent manner, than it is to do after a bit of practice.

I work across multiple tabs, especially if I would like to engage more than one member in the exchange.

With that said, yes it is also quite workable to hold to the OP's quote signature on the clipboard, and copy and paste it into the text as you reply to each point of the dialog. (Obviously typing "[/quote]" after each passage replied to which you've replied.

My point with even mentioning is, in this forum context, simple quote marks are ineffective in separating the statement for the reply, and after a bit, it's difficult to determine who said what, or even why they said it.

This is where my patience came to an end, as I believe, so did yours.....

A) System Restore is the preferred backup method of viruses and malware, B) most really well-written malware will still load in safe mode by creating a virtual device driver to allow at least some basic functionality when running in safe mode, as well as to shield a portion of it's code from antivirus and anti-malware software.

MBAM isn't nearly as effective in safe mode, as many of the malware infection's components won't be loaded in memory, which is where most well-written exploits take place - in memory. Also, scanning a your drive in another (non-infected) computer (known as offline scanning) is almost completely useless.

MBAM is a great tool, but it's not 100 % effective, and even when it is remediation needs to take place to really clean the system and to close any holes created.

the best methods to protect yourself are:

A) Don't be stupid. Exercise some critical thinking skills before forking over your credit info.
B) frequent backups. Don't really on System Restore. It creates a perfect, encrypted place for viruses and malware to back themselves up, and the OS graciously re-infects itself.
C) Good anti-virus. And by good, I mean good. As in Avast! Free, or Kapersky.
D) Secure your browser...it is the number one infection point.
E) Sandbox, popup blockers, script blockers, flash blockers, etc.
F) Don't be stupid.

If you aren't in the IT field, you probably shouldn't hand out computer security advice, any more than I would ask a mechanic for medical advice. Most of the advice given here is just wrong, with a few exceptions.

I didn't cover every good, basic, common sense security tactic in my comments...but then you can use Google just as effectively as I can.

Google for example - "anti-virus real world protection scores" - it might be eye-opening. You could also try Googling "how can I protect my computer from malware"? Or, "how can I recover from a malware exploit"?

If you do get infected, you can usually head over to bleepingcomputer.com for some very good, very specific advice on how to remove a virus/malware infection the right way, and how to fix all of the traces left behind and problems created.

Finally, know your OS. Know ever executable that should be running on your computer. Learn how to use the task manager to kill processes that shouldn't be running. Learn how to disable things from starting up that shouldn't be starting up.

Most importantly, get a BartPE or WinPE boot disc (mini WIndows on a CD), and download a free copy of SysInternals Suite of tools, every tool of which will run in WIndows PE Autoruns will enable you to hack out almost any startup settings for nefarious programs, and prevent them from loading at startup, even mutating infections.

Nothing hides from Autoruns...not even malware/virus infections hidden as device drivers.

That advice is also nonsense. I've seen Norton Anti-virus ads used as droppers for malware infections.

I think the member has some valid points of potential benefit, but the communication of them fails significantly.

In a "value added" side rant, I would like to know why we have "Techspot Gurus" that simply are either unaware of the edit button, or value its significance? Preferring instead, to happily post one serial post after another.

You can also use (") icon in the menu bar to quote without personal reference.

That works too, but its less personal.

I distinctly recall predicting as much.....

 

[Guest]

most of the people you listed would have gotten their heads chopped off for heresy if they publicly denounced god. How do you know their beliefs.

 

[DelJo63]

Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Brown were all founded by Christians.

Also Standford, Palo Alto, CA

 

[DelJo63]

And you'd don't see where this thread is basically an open invitation to a religious argument?

Far more fundamental is the willingness to believe "pseudo mathematics citing statistics" without the source of the study disclosing the background, sample size, and method(s) of testing used by the 'study'. Without such disclosure, the study is worthless and can only be taken as equivalent to saying 1 + 1 = 3. Who paid for the study is would be good insight to the motivation.

Taken literally from the title, this thread is about probability of becoming infected - - NOTHING else. Just as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", we read into these postings using our backgrounds and interest.

 

[captaincranky]

Far more fundamental is the willingness to believe "pseudo mathematics citing statistics" without the source of the study disclosing the background, sample size, and method(s) of testing used by the 'study'. Without such disclosure, the study is worthless and can only be taken as equivalent to saying 1 + 1 = 3. Who paid for the study is would be good insight to the motivation.

Beings as my last post to this thread was May 9, 2012, it seems odd that a necrobump, (which seems to have been removed), should net me a scolding nearly three years later. Unless of course, you'd perhaps like add a ceremonial aspect to it, by waiting until May 9, 2015 at the 3rd anniversary of my last post.

You make a valid point though, although it is one that might be served as well, or perhaps better, by directing it at the Techspot staff writers. Biblically speaking, you reap what you sow. Accordingly, I shouldn't be held liable for veracity of content. It's quite simply, not my job. And although FUD isn't a biological entity, it seems perfectly capable of growing and reproducing itself.

Then there's this, if I were a pet and I pooped on the carpet, you'd rub my nose in it, right on the spot, and not 3 tears later. In much the same way as your friendly neighborhood pet, I had forgotten all about my, "staining of this carpet", until I received the email, leading me to a post which no longer exists

Taken literally from the title, this thread is about probability of becoming infected - - NOTHING else. Just as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", we read into these postings using our backgrounds and interest.

"Never discuss politics or religion", or so the adage goes. In any event, as I stated three years ago, this topic lends itself perfectly to polar opposite opinions and replies.

To say that religious sites plant more malware than porn sites, is, by very little extension, a direct challenge to the integrity and morality of religious entities. Of course there's the built in denial, "we didn't know it was there said the church". Which is sung to the tune of, "we had to slaughter the Aztecs, it was for their own benefit to accept religious enlightenment, via any means necessary"..

If we're going to list colleges and universities started by "Christians", heck I've got 2 practically around the corner, Villanova and St. Joseph's. Although we just call it, "St. Joe's". One has to wonder if we're worthy of calling God's saints by their diminutives, or rather disrespectful heretics. (I may just ask the pope when he gets here in September. Just kidding, I'm staying as far away from that massive train wreck as is humanly possible .

The above material is pure satire, plain and simple. Please take it in the joking spirit it was delivered.

 

[DelJo63]

@captaincranky

Please take it in the joking spirit it was delivered.

Please help us to laugh along with you - - use some of the emoticons to give us the hint.
The dry satire easily leads the reader in the wrong direction

 

[captaincranky]

@captaincranky
Please help us to laugh along with you - - use some of the emoticons to give us the hint.
The dry satire easily leads the reader in the wrong direction

Since I've been pleading for more, and better emoticons since this software was installed, I'm not entirely certain these are up to the task. My favorite always has been, This advises of incoming sarcasm or satire, and while I don't believe, "admission absolves guilt", either here, or in some random confessional, it would be nice to have that particular emoticon on tap, if only to use it as, "defense exhibit A".

I had a very intelligent lady friend many years ago, with a sense of humor as dry and wry as my own. She could be as annoying as hell, (too). Now that I look back on the situation, I should have thoughtfully provided her with cue cards saying, "you're supposed to laugh now, that was funny".

How about if I separate the facts from the farce, point by point?

Fact: My last post to this thread was very nearly 3 years ago.

Question by me: Is there no such a thing as a "statute of limitations", on one of my posts at which point someone might no longer take exception?

Fact:: I put my faith in the staff writers to check the veracity of stories. This so I don't have to rewrite the story in my mind before commenting on it.

Fact: Yes I do go off topic frequently. There have been times that has extended the life of a thread, as opposed to foreshortening it.

Corrected fact from an earlier post:: The Spanish Inquisition ended sometime in the 1830's, not the 1860's as I reported earlier. (Although nowhere as early as most people are under the impression it ended). When you consider the fact it should never have happened it the first place, even the day after it begun would have amounted to ending too late.

More fact: : For all intents and purposes, religion and or the existence of a God is an unprovable truth. "Unprovable truths", may often, and even correctly be cast as, "superstition".

A devoutly religious person often rigorously believes "God is good, porn is bad". Which is why religious persons used to paint, (or was it carve), scarlet letters into the foreheads of "harlots". Which BTW, was a kinder and gentler disciplinary strategy, than the earlier method of stoning them to death.

When you publish a story such as this one which intimates, (however remotely), that porn sites are "safe", while the mother church's are, "bad", you are apt to get all types of polar opposite reactions to said story.

So, this story enabled a situation known as "cognitive dissonance". I love the church, and the church is good, therefore the church's websites must be good as well. No matter, even if that is not the case, because I have to reconcile the paradox with my beliefs anyway.

Now, should I go renew my futile pleading for a more coherent set of emoticons, or let that sleeping dog lie? I don't want to impose.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Since I've been pleading for more, and better emoticons since this software was installed, I'm not entirely certain these are up to the task. My favorite always has been,

I was expecting that response, because I am a witness to your request. I started once to comment on your behalf, but thought better of it.

 

[captaincranky]

I was expecting that response, because I am a witness to your request. I started once to comment on your behalf, but thought better of it.

So there's no provision for common interest in your philosophy toward me?

 

[DelJo63]

#60; VERY Lucid comment(y) and agree on

and fftopic: additions

 

[Guest]

..done by atheists. Guess what it revealed! I guess that all the great minds throughout history, the overwhelming majority of whom were people of faith, no longer meet the "objective" standard of "intelligence" - I.e. being an atheist. That aside, this shows that Symantec doesn't have a clue what their talking about. They don't even list <I>piracy</I> sites, which are far and away the #1 source for browser infections. I don't think I'll be buying the latest Norton products with this kind of "intelligence" being involved in its design.

Piracy sites were included, unless Norton users don't visit those.

 

[Cees Timmerman]

Hackers do not have morals. If hackers had any morals they would not have become hackers. No one is safe from a hacker, if there is anything the hacker thinks they could gain from an attack. There is a larger crowd behind religion than there is Apple, so why wouldn't religious sites be targeted?

Hacker morality is indicated by their "hat". To the meek, "black hats" are selfish (exploit flaws for personal gain) and "white hats" are helpful (report flaws responsibly to get them fixed).

Hackers in general are quick at creating solutions. The term originated in the 1960s at MIT's model rail club.