|
In further sad news it was announced to day that Yankee Doodle Pigeon from the Dastardly and Muttley TV show has passed away.
Reports indicate that he was found last night in the kitchen under a covering of short crust pastry
it is reported that the first emergency services to the scene are reported to have said "mm tasty pie"
Dastardly and Muttley have refused to comment but are being held as persons of interest
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
S-s-s-s-s-so they f-f-f-f-finally s-s-s-s-stopped that p-p-p-p-pigeon!
Zoink boink pling bzzzzz!
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy is that you?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
You don't have to get rude! 
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry you just sounded so much like him (its the gin)
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Now I have the song "Stop that Pigeon" in my head. 
Mongo: Mongo only pawn... in game of life.
|
|
|
|
|
A previous colleague just sent me this. I always liked his work, landscapes, (old, abandoned) buildings, vehicles...
And it seems he made it public: Awesome photography[^].
|
|
|
|
|
Link to a site that doesn't seem to be functional. Is that because I'm in the US and it's geo-fenced?
Sarcasm - it's not just a verbal skill - it's a lifestyle!
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Alviani wrote: Is that because I'm in the US and it's geo-fenced?
Don't think so... Why would it be?
Link works for me though...
|
|
|
|
|
Worked for me too. And I'm in the US.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I am in the US and it works for me.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
To much post processing for my taste, but he's showing some promise when he comes out of the HDR hole.
|
|
|
|
|
Those all look like digital captures; not photographs. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Psst - snap[^]]
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
I think Airplane[^] was his best work. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
So the virus scanner at work is slowing down a download for Android Studio which is:
https://dl.google.com/android/android-sdk_r22.6.2-windows.zip
Well, that's a google zip so it's probably okay. But the stupid virus scanner could just check the domain and the hash of the original zip and then know that it is okay. But instead the virus scanner doesn't and it slows the installation to a terrible crawl as it :
1. unzips the files.
2. copies files to sandbox
3. examines each file for malicious bytes
It's terrible.
VirusTotal.com
So I thought, wow, VirusTotal.com probably has the hash of this file anyways and we could instantly discover if it were malicious.
I go over there, enter the link and it reports 1 of 63 (of virus scanners) as being malicious. Blueliv reports malicious content. You can see the report at:
https://www.virustotal.com/en/url/3a290d3a65cebd7a29a9c98106bfc04ef5e1f2df096412b55cd5de3f76e3b65b/analysis/1431690217/[^]
What!?! Ugh. There has to be a better way.
* EDIT ****
Okay, I also noticed that if you click the information tab on the report, it says download size exceeded size allowed only 32 Mb will be downloaded. So I guess virustotal.com basically failed. Confusing.
|
|
|
|
|
Because a hash database is very easy to defeat. Just sprinkle some random bytes around in unimportant places and you pass the test again.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, really?
I thought a hash of a file was extremely difficult to defeat.
I mean using a proper (uncracked) hash algorithm.
I know MD5 was cracked but others?
Interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
It's hard to generate a collision, it's trivial to generate a non-collision.
edit: OK so I re-read your original post, do you mean make a database of known-OK files? That wouldn't be easy to get past.. it would also be completely unworkable though.
modified 15-May-15 8:37am.
|
|
|
|
|
Harold, I think you misunderstood him. Nevermind, I saw your edit 
And I think newton.saber overlooks one detail: While checking the actual hash against the should-be-hash obtained from an official site would probably work to detect automatic infections, it wouldn't if there was someone who "engineers" a new, infected zip file to match the hashcode of the original.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Sascha Lefèvre wrote: it wouldn't if there was someone who "engineers" a new, infected zip file to match the hashcode of the original.
I thought of that, but I didn't think it was feasible if the HASH algorithm wasn't cracked.
I didn't believe that was possible. Is it programmatically easy?
I'm confused by this. Are you saying that if I obtain the hash for a windows DLL for example, then someone could create their malicious DLL and sprinkle bytes into it to match the hash of the original DLL, thus taking over my windows DLL?
No one is safe.
|
|
|
|
|
A cracked hash algorithm would mean that the solution-space of possible input data can be narrowed down from the hash.
But you don't need that here. Someone could infect some file in the zip archive with a malware and then modify "unimportant" parts of the archive so that it yields a hash collision with the original archive. Wouldn't be trivial but possible (in case of small archives potentially impossible).
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah it's pretty trivial. It's not a matter of cracking the algorithm.
|
|
|
|
|
And how are you going to find out if the files you're zipping up in your installation are infected before you post it for everyone to download and install on their machines??
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
