Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Software
Security Apps
Kaspersky
Sophisticated hacker bypasses powerful antivirus, how?
Message
<blockquote data-quote="i7ii" data-source="post: 1117928" data-attributes="member: 116614"><p>That's exactly my issue with that wall of text - a complete waste of time. Supposedly, you were aiming for a counter-argument - but offered no credible/reliable arguments in that regard, quite the opposite - the parts which make sense - say the same thing (same core idea - different wording). Made no sense for you - to quote me with self-contradictory statements. You start with the next make belief cyber-utopia line "as counter-argument" ...</p><p></p><p>Which couldn't be further from the objective reality. Even more than that, my statements in regards to that - are credible & verifiable - even by someone with the most basic understanding of cyber-security - yet reasonably sociable (still connected with friends, family and different acquaintances / if secluded, antisocial and stubbornly holding on to outdated beliefs - such level of ignorance could make one blind to the present time state of the real and virtual world), if they happen to dodge every cyber-bullet in past 10 years. Your statement is based on what (Universe - which reality)?! Cause in our world - that context is plausible only for someone living Off-grid, pure luck or overly-excessive cyber-security measure(for first 2x examples - counting on luck or living off-grid - even a system filled with exploitable vulnerabilities - obviously couldn't be exploited if not reached). Which can't possibly reflect even 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of Home Users.</p><p></p><p>And then, as if having a dual personality (actively taking over your mind) - you contradict-yourself with more than half of what you stated in previous post - by describing all the ways you can think of - where Home Users are easy targets (like fishing in a barrel). That being said, you yourself with your own words - nullified your own <em>counter-</em>argument. So what exactly is the point in all of this, why quote me to begin with?! Other than wasting my (and your) time - by spewing all you could think of - basically, saying a lot - but no valid challenging points, nothing new or remotely useful (nothing to learn or gain).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Here you go again. Did you read my first post? I'm 41. If you wanna impress an adult - try with "factual/empirical evidence (something to show for)" or maybe some wordily renowned cyber-security project that has your name on it. Superficial titles like that - didn't impress me even as a child (even tho back then - the boastfulness was more compelling - like claiming their dad has access to nuclear codes). While this days, after working with multiple governments myself - i find such titles morally disgusting. Since landing a job among the highest mafia of many modern societies - usually implies some level of nepotism or bribes (even the cleaning lady - knew somebody - to land that job). Then comes the laughable part - "while noticing the outdated tech equipment (both hardware and software wise) - used by most governmental facilities. Old tech, like using HDD as storage and struggling to run Windows 7 is one thing (still cringe worthy - but it gets worst...) - but even seen apps made for Internet Explorer using the Active X framework. But hey, since the threat feeds statistics you have access to - are so outdated - wouldn't be surprise if even that gourvermental system is equally outdated - maybe even running Windows XP (which coincidentally - was actually released in 2001). Cause even in the Tech Age - public founds managed by tech illiterate seniors - whom also landed a job with the help of nepotism - were always deemed as better spent elswere.</p><p></p><p>Kowing and witnessing stuff like that - first hand... wasn't surprised in the slightest - that even a 11 year old manage to make a fool out of clowns in high places and their level of expertise:</p><p></p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/22/us-elections-hacking-voting-machines-def-con[/URL]</p><p></p><p>But that's white hat hacking, black hat hackers play a diffrent game on a global scale:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But sure, i take it - in your world and whatever threat feeds you claim to have access to - there's no breach of a governmental institution since the 90s (if based on those threat feeds, home users running Windows 98 or even Windows XP SP1 released around that time - proved to be to secure - to much of a hassle for the hackers living in your personal Universe). Seriously, at this point - even claiming you have access to nuclear codes seems more feasible/plausible. You should try your luck as a politician - you do fit the <em>requirements (can talk a lot - without actually saying anything useful, you can convince some people that empirical evidence - which they can easily check - is less relevant than some nonsensical child-like story about mystical data only couple of people have access to - despite sounding really silly, you're prone to manipulative evasiveness - where words like "credible, reliable, real-world, etc" are used - despite a lack of empirical evidence). </em>Good luck.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="i7ii, post: 1117928, member: 116614"] That's exactly my issue with that wall of text - a complete waste of time. Supposedly, you were aiming for a counter-argument - but offered no credible/reliable arguments in that regard, quite the opposite - the parts which make sense - say the same thing (same core idea - different wording). Made no sense for you - to quote me with self-contradictory statements. You start with the next make belief cyber-utopia line "as counter-argument" ... Which couldn't be further from the objective reality. Even more than that, my statements in regards to that - are credible & verifiable - even by someone with the most basic understanding of cyber-security - yet reasonably sociable (still connected with friends, family and different acquaintances / if secluded, antisocial and stubbornly holding on to outdated beliefs - such level of ignorance could make one blind to the present time state of the real and virtual world), if they happen to dodge every cyber-bullet in past 10 years. Your statement is based on what (Universe - which reality)?! Cause in our world - that context is plausible only for someone living Off-grid, pure luck or overly-excessive cyber-security measure(for first 2x examples - counting on luck or living off-grid - even a system filled with exploitable vulnerabilities - obviously couldn't be exploited if not reached). Which can't possibly reflect even 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of Home Users. And then, as if having a dual personality (actively taking over your mind) - you contradict-yourself with more than half of what you stated in previous post - by describing all the ways you can think of - where Home Users are easy targets (like fishing in a barrel). That being said, you yourself with your own words - nullified your own [I]counter-[/I]argument. So what exactly is the point in all of this, why quote me to begin with?! Other than wasting my (and your) time - by spewing all you could think of - basically, saying a lot - but no valid challenging points, nothing new or remotely useful (nothing to learn or gain). Here you go again. Did you read my first post? I'm 41. If you wanna impress an adult - try with "factual/empirical evidence (something to show for)" or maybe some wordily renowned cyber-security project that has your name on it. Superficial titles like that - didn't impress me even as a child (even tho back then - the boastfulness was more compelling - like claiming their dad has access to nuclear codes). While this days, after working with multiple governments myself - i find such titles morally disgusting. Since landing a job among the highest mafia of many modern societies - usually implies some level of nepotism or bribes (even the cleaning lady - knew somebody - to land that job). Then comes the laughable part - "while noticing the outdated tech equipment (both hardware and software wise) - used by most governmental facilities. Old tech, like using HDD as storage and struggling to run Windows 7 is one thing (still cringe worthy - but it gets worst...) - but even seen apps made for Internet Explorer using the Active X framework. But hey, since the threat feeds statistics you have access to - are so outdated - wouldn't be surprise if even that gourvermental system is equally outdated - maybe even running Windows XP (which coincidentally - was actually released in 2001). Cause even in the Tech Age - public founds managed by tech illiterate seniors - whom also landed a job with the help of nepotism - were always deemed as better spent elswere. Kowing and witnessing stuff like that - first hand... wasn't surprised in the slightest - that even a 11 year old manage to make a fool out of clowns in high places and their level of expertise: [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/22/us-elections-hacking-voting-machines-def-con[/URL] But that's white hat hacking, black hat hackers play a diffrent game on a global scale: But sure, i take it - in your world and whatever threat feeds you claim to have access to - there's no breach of a governmental institution since the 90s (if based on those threat feeds, home users running Windows 98 or even Windows XP SP1 released around that time - proved to be to secure - to much of a hassle for the hackers living in your personal Universe). Seriously, at this point - even claiming you have access to nuclear codes seems more feasible/plausible. You should try your luck as a politician - you do fit the [I]requirements (can talk a lot - without actually saying anything useful, you can convince some people that empirical evidence - which they can easily check - is less relevant than some nonsensical child-like story about mystical data only couple of people have access to - despite sounding really silly, you're prone to manipulative evasiveness - where words like "credible, reliable, real-world, etc" are used - despite a lack of empirical evidence). [/I]Good luck. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
