0

>Don't you think it would be helpful if we knew what you were talking about or what you want exactly?
I think it's obvious what they want, and the answer is equally obvious.

J. Random Newbie: "Teach me to be a l33t hax0r who writes viruses!"
Us: "NO!"

>Why should you care if your virus is used ?
Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds? I know enough about viruses to write something that can do a lot of damage (on the order of billions of dollars) and be a pain in the ass to remove. I don't want something like that to happen, so I care a great deal if my viruses are used and who uses them. You should too, unless you're willing to give me permission to "install" one of them on your machine. :twisted:

>Hence a disclaimer is in order.
Hence we refuse completely to assist in potentially illegal or dangerous activities and avoid the issue entirely. If someone is ignorant enough about viruses to ask for help on a forum, they're ignorant enough to accidentally release one.

>by the sounds of it your just trying to think up excuses because you carnt actly program ?
We're secure enough in our knowledge not to take this kind of bait.

0

are you all so ignorant as to say that the only place to learn how viruses work is to go to an antivirus website? no, guys. you can learn how to write viruses at many places. there are many e-zines out there by various groups, and stuff. if you wanna get a buncha texts on viruses...

http://www.textfiles.com/virus/

hey, look! evil virus info on a public website that is well known! ouch. btw, for the du0d who said that in order to create a virus you need inf0z on vulnerabilities and how to exploit them... you're wrong kiddo. what you're thinking about are worms. viruses are about staying hidden, replicating its own code, attaching itself to other files, possibly destroying data, and finding clever ways to distribute itself. worms exploit holes and sneak in. worms are generally harder to write. as it goes for what language you should learn when writing viruses, learn assembly. i hope you write a destructive virus someday, to whoever wanted to know. screw you whitehats here, blackhat is where it's at!

gr33tz: PHRACK HIGH COUNCIL, ~el8, h0no, and all other pr0j3kt m4yh3m cellz up in the internet.

death to all whitehatz.
death to full-disclosure.
death to anyone who opposes pr0j3kt m4yh3m.

seriously though dude, write a virus for two reasons: to learn, and to destroy. actually, 3 reasons... add on "to see how far it can go before it gets on mainstream AV software. also, write a virus for linux, because linux sucks. make sure it rm -rf /*'s the system on friday the 13th. actually, you might have to write a worm for that, since that would mean it'd need root privz. good luck.

0

Uh... Comatose, you're a moderator... think :)

MOV ah,0 will infect ah with a zero :D

infect? lol. no, think, kid. why would you do mov ah,0 when you can do xor ah, ah? it is only a 2 byte opcode. mov ah,0 would be much bigger, because in memory it would append 32 bits of 0's, which is a waste of time. good luck with assembly, though.

0

>are you all so ignorant as to say that the only place to learn how
>viruses work is to go to an antivirus website?
No, we're all smart enough to say that this isn't the place to learn how viruses work.

>screw you whitehats here, blackhat is where it's at!
Who says I'm a white hat? :twisted:

>why would you do mov ah,0 when you can do xor ah, ah?
Good question. Probably because it can be better to write code where the intentions are obvious. But there are better solutions even than xor depending on the situation. For example, xor leaves the aux flag undefined, but you might want your zero operation to leave it in a predictable state. So sub would be better. And it's been argued that and has more efficient logic than xor.

>it is only a 2 byte opcode.
Brilliant Holmes. I'm curious to see your explanation of how this is superior when "mov ah,0" also has a two byte opcode. :) I get the feeling that your entire argument hinges on the fact that you're thinking of "mov eax,0", which is a different beast entirely.

>because in memory it would append 32 bits of 0's
Really. Care to elaborate?

>which is a waste of time
Actually, it would be a waste of space, not so much a waste of time. In this case, mov wouldn't be a waste of time because it saves you a keystroke. ;) In fact, the two solutions are identical in terms of CPU cycles and opcode size on all Intel processors newer than the 80386 (IIRC).

Before you shoot your mouth off, it helps to know what you're talking about.

0

>are you all so ignorant as to say that the only place to learn how
>viruses work is to go to an antivirus website?
No, we're all smart enough to say that this isn't the place to learn how viruses work.

>screw you whitehats here, blackhat is where it's at!
Who says I'm a white hat? :twisted:

>why would you do mov ah,0 when you can do xor ah, ah?
Good question. Probably because it can be better to write code where the intentions are obvious. But there are better solutions even than xor depending on the situation. For example, xor leaves the aux flag undefined, but you might want your zero operation to leave it in a predictable state. So sub would be better. And it's been argued that and has more efficient logic than xor.

>it is only a 2 byte opcode.
Brilliant Holmes. I'm curious to see your explanation of how this is superior when "mov ah,0" also has a two byte opcode. :) I get the feeling that your entire argument hinges on the fact that you're thinking of "mov eax,0", which is a different beast entirely.

>because in memory it would append 32 bits of 0's
Really. Care to elaborate?

>which is a waste of time
Actually, it would be a waste of space, not so much a waste of time. In this case, mov wouldn't be a waste of time because it saves you a keystroke. ;) In fact, the two solutions are identical in terms of CPU cycles and opcode size on all Intel processors newer than the 80386 (IIRC).

Before you shoot your mouth off, it helps to know what you're talking about.

Erm, yeah... i was thinking of eax for some reason. anyways, i like xor. my elaboration is that i was actually tired, and was thinking of "mov eax, 0" for some reason. you're quite the egotistical one, aren't you? xor is pretty much the most cool instruction anyway. mov looks idiotic. anyways, you're not a blackhat, i know that for a fact. you don't condone the writing of "illegal" things, so you're obviously not a blackhat. i condone it. i say the internet should be destroyed. anyways, i think you lamers here are pretty retarded with all your perfect punctuation and stuff like that. and yes, you're whitehats. and yes, "xor eax, eax" would be 2 bytes, and "mov eax, 0" would be 4 (which is what i meant to say, but i was saying it at the wrong time). there's nothing wrong with wanting to write a destructive virus. you are either a whitehat or not any hat at all. by the way, THERE IS NO GREYHAT, BECAUSE GREYHAT == WHITEHAT. i own you.

0

>you're quite the egotistical one, aren't you?
Yes. Yes, I am.

>xor is pretty much the most cool instruction anyway. mov looks idiotic.
Well, I can't argue with your l33t hax0r logic. :rolleyes: Just for the record, I prefer xor myself. Mostly out of habit though.

>you don't condone the writing of "illegal" things, so you're obviously not a blackhat.
Hmm:

condone: tr.v. To overlook, forgive, or disregard without protest or censure.

If I didn't condone the writing of "illegal" things, that would make me a hypocrite, wouldn't it? You can write anything you want, I don't really care. I just won't teach you how to do it if it's illegal or likely to cause excessive damage. I do this for two reasons:

1) I've chosen to adhere to the rules of this forum.

Therefore, I'll refuse to aid in anything of an illicit nature on Daniweb whether I want to or not. It's convenient that pretty much everyone who asks for help with something illegal is clearly unworthy of that knowledge, so I've no incentive to help them anyway.

2) "Figure it out your damn self" is a guiding principle of real hackers.

Script kiddies want everything handed to them, but the real McCoy will typically refuse any help offered to them because the whole point of hacking is gaining the depth of understanding that can only be attained by finding the answers oneself. And once you've put forth the effort to learn what you need to know, you'll be in a much better position to use that knowledge wisely, which is just as important as the knowledge itself.

>i think you lamers here are pretty retarded with all your perfect punctuation and bullshit like that.
Hackers strive for perfection in all things. Lamers attack them because they're incapable of such commitment. That makes you a lamer, not me. :)

>and "mov eax, 0" would be 4
*sigh* And you're still wrong even after I've told you that you're wrong. The least you could do is research the topic so that you don't sound like a complete retard. This is a very simple concept that any assembly programmer should be aware of, since it comes up so often. For future reference:

mov ah,0 ; 2 byte opcode
mov ax,0 ; 3 byte opcode
mov eax,0 ; 5 byte opcode

>i own you.
I have yet to see evidence of this. So far it looks like you're completely outclassed and too stupid to realize it.

0

mov ah,0 ; 2 byte opcode
mov ax,0 ; 3 byte opcode


> mov eax,0 ; 5 byte opcode

what i meant was that there would be 4 bytes of 0's at the end, which is TRUE. and that is what i said. if i said it was a 4 byte opcode, i said it wrong. i meant it was 4 bytes of 0's.

$ ndisasm -b 32 lol
00000000  B800000000        mov eax,0x0
$

like i said, 4 bytes of 0's. it's a 5 byte opcode, which you are correct about.

also, i never said i was a hacker. but hackers are trying to perfect their methods/techniques and skills. not stupid punctuation on the internet (it's not an essay, or school at all).

also, about your "real hackers figure things out for themself" comment. he isn't trying to be a hacker. he's trying to learn how to write a virus. i was helping to guide him along the path... and there's nothing wrong with that. none of those texts show you exactly how to write one (i haven't read them all, but i dont think they do).

oh and you're wrong... hacking is all about 2 things: learning, and breaking into systems. your idea of it was a total whitehat idea. you're brainwashed by the security industry and you don't even know it.

0

>what i meant was that there would be 4 bytes of 0's at the end
...

>also, i never said i was a hacker.
Then you're not in a position to say what they are or are not.

>he isn't trying to be a hacker.
That's a shame. Anyone who uses computers for more than email and word processing should strive to be a hacker.

>i haven't read them all, but i dont think they do
Why don't you read them, then you can say for sure if they do or not. :rolleyes:

>hacking is all about 2 things: learning, and breaking into systems.
No. Hacking is about discovery. Cracking is about removing boundaries. One prefers to create, the other prefers to destroy. It's best not to mix them up, even though you may find people who can be described as either depending on the circumstances.

>your idea of it was a total whitehat idea.
No, my idea of it was the view of a hacker. If you want my view of a cracker, then so be it. A true cracker is amoral, there's no distinction between whitehat and blackhat. Those terms are useful for describing the two common divisions of crackers to laymen, but they're nothing more than superficial descriptions of what crackers are.

Of course, the majority of "crackers" are actually mindless losers who may understand the technical aspects, but completely fail to grasp the concept of cracking. Those are the ones that get a kick out of breaking things (and typically get arrested), or the ones that try to show off their skills in a vain attempt to garner recognition.

>you're brainwashed by the security industry and you don't even know it.
You're an amusing person. :) Keep it coming, I'm enjoying this. You might even come to realize that you're the one who's been brainwashed by stereotypes..

0

>what i meant was that there would be 4 bytes of 0's at the end
...

>also, i never said i was a hacker.
Then you're not in a position to say what they are or are not.

>he isn't trying to be a hacker.
That's a shame. Anyone who uses computers for more than email and word processing should strive to be a hacker.

>i haven't read them all, but i dont think they do
Why don't you read them, then you can say for sure if they do or not. :rolleyes:

>hacking is all about 2 things: learning, and breaking into systems.
No. Hacking is about discovery. Cracking is about removing boundaries. One prefers to create, the other prefers to destroy. It's best not to mix them up, even though you may find people who can be described as either depending on the circumstances.

>your idea of it was a total whitehat idea.
No, my idea of it was the view of a hacker. If you want my view of a cracker, then so be it. A true cracker is amoral, there's no distinction between whitehat and blackhat. Those terms are useful for describing the two common divisions of crackers to laymen, but they're nothing more than superficial descriptions of what crackers are.

Of course, the majority of "crackers" are actually mindless losers who may understand the technical aspects, but completely fail to grasp the concept of cracking. Those are the ones that get a kick out of breaking things (and typically get arrested), or the ones that try to show off their skills in a vain attempt to garner recognition.

>you're brainwashed by the security industry and you don't even know it.
You're an amusing person. :) Keep it coming, I'm enjoying this. You might even come to realize that you're the one who's been brainwashed by stereotypes..

you are a complete whitehat. whatever. believe what you want... only a real hacker can comprehend what i am talking about. you are not mentally capable of this concept of "blackhat and whitehat." typically anyone who calls themself a cracker is someone who circumvents security on programs, like "try and buy" and "30-day trial" software. a hacker is someone who circumvents system security to break in and get access, preferably to the root/administrator account(s). a whitehat is someone who learns all they can about hacking, but doesn't actually hack; they try to post to bugtraq about the latest vulnerabilities. normally whitehats make money off of selling 0day exploits for CERT or some other company. often whitehats are also narqs. blackhats use their knowledge in computers to break into systems, and don't disclose the vulnerabilities they find, or the exploits they write, or the techniques they use to exploit these vulnerabilities. whitehats aren't really hackers, because they never actually hack anything outside of their own network, unless given permission (what a bunch of pussies!). you won't often see a REAL blackhat call themself a cracker. they'd call themself a hacker, or a "blackhat hacker." but you don't have any real hacker friends, since you don't like the idea of breaking the law.

0

you are a complete whitehat. whatever. believe what you want... only a real hacker can comprehend what i am talking about. you are not mentally capable of this concept of "blackhat and whitehat." typically anyone who calls themself a cracker is someone who circumvents security on programs, like "try and buy" and "30-day trial" software. a hacker is someone who circumvents system security to break in and get access, preferably to the root/administrator account(s). a whitehat is someone who learns all they can about hacking, but doesn't actually hack; they try to post to bugtraq about the latest vulnerabilities. normally whitehats make money off of selling 0day exploits for CERT or some other company. often whitehats are also narqs. blackhats use their knowledge in computers to break into systems, and don't disclose the vulnerabilities they find, or the exploits they write, or the techniques they use to exploit these vulnerabilities. whitehats aren't really hackers, because they never actually hack anything outside of their own network, unless given permission (what a bunch of pussies!). you won't often see a REAL blackhat call themself a cracker. they'd call themself a hacker, or a "blackhat hacker." but you don't have any real hacker friends, since you don't like the idea of breaking the law.

Just what I expected, and you didn't disappoint me. Keep it coming, you're a funny guy. :) You sound like the countless losers who read a few editions of 2600 and suddenly think they're experts. And also as expected, you've shown absolutely no depth of knowledge to add credibility to the nonsense you've been spouting.

0

Just what I expected, and you didn't disappoint me. Keep it coming, you're a funny guy. :) You sound like the countless losers who read a few editions of 2600 and suddenly think they're experts. And also as expected, you've shown absolutely no depth of knowledge to add credibility to the nonsense you've been spouting.

2600 == whitehats. no way would i read those. i do know fred, though.

1

loller, are you 16 years old? I make an exercise out of guessing people's ages based on their writing style and would like to see how accurate I am.

2

Oh for Christ's sake, folks- this is really disheartening.

While I close this antagonistic, sophmoric stream of ego-stroking blather, let me leave you with a couple of words to consider:

Maturity
Professionalism

-

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.