Keylogger defeater

[Guest]

[Luketan]

The point about the inherent shortcomings of a prevention strategy had some validity though.The weakest point of such a method will always be the user that insists on running or installing 'abc.exe' or '123 codec' in order to run a game or video for example,despite warnings about unknown processes flashing up.

Examples are not always as clearcut as this. How about a security program, someone tells you is the newest hottest anti-rookit? You see warning about drivers installing and all that, but that's usual for this kind of program right?

How about a trusted software site being hacked and replaced with a trojanised copy (happened more than once before), or a case where something malicious accidently slipped into the code of a trusted updated program?

Also there is nothing inherently dangerous in an "unknown process". What is REALLY keying you off that something is wrong is not the "unknown" factor, but rather you are not expecting the process to run.

If you just double clicked a exe, there is nothing inherently dangerous about this "unknown process", after all you wanted it to run, so it runs.....

[andyman35]

Categorically.

"To find out if something is truly fool-proof, first add a fool." 

Quite so,I like that one 

[Snowhawk]

Do it fool-proof? We don't construct things for fools 

Sry, I couldn't resist.

[Luketan]

Do it fool-proof? We don't construct things for fools 

Sry, I couldn't resist.

The problem with fools is that they are so 100% adamantly sure that they aren't fools...

[Snowhawk]

Yes, indeed

[gibran]

Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.

[Luketan]

Yes, indeed

Well, the nice thing of not being a "moderator" or "hero" is that one doesn't have to pretend that he knows everything or is always right....

It's smart to be a bit unsure, which explains why i'm unsure if i will definitely be up to using complex hips like D+ correctly.... Compare it to the attitudes of the people in this thread, who love to thumb their noses down at people who they consider "fools" because they express doubt...

[panic]

[at] luketan,

I think you may have misunderstood me. When I said

"To find out if something is truly fool-proof, first add a fool."

I was not implying that anyone was a fool, merely that no matter how well designed a product is (software, car, coffee grinder or whatever), there are always the unforseen circumstances that will arise when that product is used in an uncontrolled environment.

A lot of things work perfectly in the lab, but fail when used in the real world. This real world failure may be due to a design flaw not detected or predicted in the lab. Alternatively it could be caused by an unexpected mode of operation. Neither of these makes the user a fool.

OK?

edit : minor typo

[gibran]

As for me I simply reworded Luketan sentence:

The problem with fools is that they are so 100% adamantly sure that they aren't fools...

which share the same meaning as

Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.

Anyway all forum members should know by now that Luketan usually is much more willing to point out something to blame than engage in an honest and profitable discussion.


that's why anyone can often read something like this in his posts:

Well, the nice thing of not being a "moderator" or "hero" is that one doesn't have to pretend that he knows everything or is always right....

As for what panic posted I guess Luketan should be able to agree if he wrote :

Well honestly i think most security software are quite useless if you know what you are doing. 

Anyway if we really have to contuinue further this OT I guess it would be useful to split this thread in two-three new ones.

[Tags:]