×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

94 comments

Most Unique? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42408105)

Shame on you Slashdot.

Re:Most Unique? (4, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | about a year ago | (#42408205)

Uniquest would have been better.

Re:Most Unique? (5, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a year ago | (#42408263)

Uniqueier

Re:Most Unique? (3, Funny)

derGoldstein (1494129) | about a year ago | (#42409303)

"Uniquest" would be the superlative, so it would be a higher level of "unique" than "Uniqueier".
In other words:
Uniquest > Uniqueier > unique
I'm not 100% sure where "most unique" should be placed, but I think it would be the equivalent of "Uniquest".

Remember, there used to be only one type of "infinity" in math. Now someone just has to properly define different levels of "uniqueness".
(yeah, I'm not sure if this is a joke post either)

Re:Most Unique? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42409419)

"Uniquest" would be the superlative, so it would be a higher level of "unique" than "Uniqueier".

That's not how I remember it: Uniquest is a noun meaning a largely uneventful, yet expensive, life journey resulting ultimately in an attempt to convince others the quest had merit. Of said odysseys much prose is written. Once collected the verses sit in great libraries the size of small cities called universities, which are the quintessential starting point of uniquests -- the pair of terms are unique in language, each being recursively responsible for each the other's 'uni' prefix.

I'd tell tales of the "uniqueier", but Alas, the theory of quantum queerness singularities may be unsuitable for some readers.

Re:Most Unique? (3, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about a year ago | (#42408289)

Putting my grammar in my pocket for a moment, I got to admit that:

Ainslot.L: When it infects, the Ainslot.L bot scans computers and removes any other bots it finds.

Sort of passes as being pretty damned uniquest!

Re:Most Unique? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42408331)

Uniquest would have been better.

Or many much most uniquest. Remember that North Uniquest is best Uniquest!

Re:Most Unique? (2)

flaming error (1041742) | about a year ago | (#42408257)

Indeed. And shame on Dice Holdings, Inc. Shame on DARPA. Shame on the whole internet.

And most of all, shame on PandaLabs. How could you.

Re:Most Unique? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42408579)

And shame on you most of all Flaming Error, this all your fault.

1 in 1000, 1 in 10000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42408337)

Surely 1 in 10,000 is more unique than 1 in 1,000, and of a set of unique things the most unique one is the 1 in 1 million thing.

What I find most unique about your post, is that an A/C can have so much authority that wannabe grammar nazis are all lining up to back you up!

Shame on you Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42409641)

ha, that day has long since past....

slashdot, news for idiot wannabe nerds and hackneyed interweb trolls...

ffs, i have seen the beginning of the end.

captcha = 'vagaries'

Re:Most Unique? (1)

Danathar (267989) | about a year ago | (#42410209)

My wife would agree. Every time she hears unique modified I have to deal with her ranting in the living room for 10 minutes. :(

Re:Most Unique? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42411097)

Only clicked the link to check for this comment.

Was not disappointed.

oh come on (4, Interesting)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#42408159)

Oh come on, where's the CD tray random timer open and closer from Lizard Works? Yeah it wasn't "made" in 2012 but it's still around and it's A LEGEND! lol.

Re:oh come on (5, Interesting)

RedHackTea (2779623) | about a year ago | (#42408575)

Just for fun. I don't know if this will compile (don't have a Windows machine near me at the moment).

#pragma comment(lib,"WINMM.LIB")
#include <windows.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>

int main(int argc,char **argv) {
mciSendString("OPEN CDAUDIO",NULL,0,NULL);
for(srand(time(NULL));; Sleep(rand() % 600000)) {
mciSendString("SET CDAUDIO DOOR OPEN",NULL,0,NULL);
}
return 0;
}

Re:oh come on (2)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about a year ago | (#42409021)

mciSendString is an enormously valuable and deprecated API call that ties right into the Windows video codec stack. It has its legacy back in the 16 bit era, but I can't think of a better high level video API that is so simple, yet powerful. The mess comes from the COM interface being exposed so casually

Re:oh come on (2, Informative)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#42409767)

Seems to compile just fine.

1>------ Build started: Project: silly, Configuration: Debug Win32 ------
1> silly.c
1>silly.c(8): warning C4244: 'function' : conversion from 'time_t' to 'unsigned int', possible loss of data
1> silly.vcxproj -> silly.exe
========== Build: 1 succeeded, 0 failed, 0 up-to-date, 0 skipped ==========

Re:oh come on (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42409545)

For anyone (not me) who has ever set their soda in front of their CD tray, this is a terrifying virus.

I've done terribly stupid things in the past, such as knocking orange juice into a shut-off computer. But, that wasn't the stupid part. The stupid part wasn't fully checking to see if orange juice got into the cabling for the hard drive before turning it on.

Biology research skewing my perspective ... (1)

kwyjibo87 (2792329) | about a year ago | (#42408161)

At first, I was super excited by the headline and thought: "I hope they include these newly discovered python viruses [bbc.co.uk] !" Only to quickly realize the authors meant a different kind of Python...

Re:Biology research skewing my perspective ... (1)

TheLink (130905) | about a year ago | (#42408395)

I wonder how much Python malware there is... I suppose if OS X ever gets enough marketshare someone might start writing malware in Python. Or perl? TIMTOWTDI for malware might be interesting- polymorphic perl malware using LWP, curl to fetch new instructions/payloads. Could be crossplatform and work on Linux and Unix as well.

Re:Biology research skewing my perspective ... (4, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#42409105)

Well considering the how to write a Linux virus in 5 easy steps [geekzone.co.nz] article uses Python and when I search for "Python malware" I get over 600,000 hits? There is probably plenty of Python malware already out there, it just doesn't get as much press as a Windows bug as it has a smaller target. But as long as there is the potential to make money on infected machines I'm sure that somebody will be targeting just about every combo of language and OS you can think of, no OS is immune to a targeted attack.

Now that said I have to deal with some customers that are...sigh...can you say "click happy" and clueless? So after many hours of trying various combos on test boxes here at the shop I have come up with what I call my "foolproof Windows for fools" that makes the machines as solid as tanks and cuts the living hell out of the risk of malware. basically short of them going "Why yes, please infect my machine" which sadly I have had to deal with at least once, well short of them going the extra mile to be super stupid you'll have a system that short of hardware failure won't be going anywhere. For those that want to know how, recipe is as follows:

1.-First make sure their software is all up to date and Windows is set to automatically download and install patches, otherwise they are likely to just ignore the patches and leave the machine vulnerable.

2.- Get a low rights mode browser with ABP, any Chromium based will do but I use Comodo Dragon [comodo.com] as it has privalert which will block all the tracking crap and you can choose to use Comodo Secure DNS in the browser only, this helps to block a LOT of infected websites from loading in the first place.

3.- For an AV I recommend either Avast Free or Comodo IS, both have their pluses. Avast AV is a little more "chatty" about what its doing and I found some folks really like that, Comodo IS has built in sandboxing and is easy to configure for the actual user, so its really up to you as both are quite good at stopping malware.

4.- Install FileHippo Update Checker [filehippo.com] and have it set to run at startup, it only uses a couple hundred KB of memory and will tell them when their third party software is out of date as well as provide links to the software, this keeps them from downloading "flash updates" and other dubious software updates. if the Hippo doesn't say it needs updating then it don't need updating.

5.-Finally you need to have a hidden backup and restore partition, just in case they ever manage to figure a way to get infected or if a family member comes over and trashes things. I am testing Paragon Drive backup for this roll but since I haven't finished testing I'd have to go with Comodo Time Machine [comodo.com] but be aware its no longer supported and I don't think its been tested with Windows 8. That said the nice thing here is you can lock a snapshot with everything set up and all the third party software loaded so you have your own "OEM restore partition" without the trialware crap and it can also create snapshots on a schedule and be accessed if the machine can't even boot to desktop by just pushing the Home key. this way if they manage to somehow seriously screw up the OS a single push of the Home key and 20 minutes later they are back up and running.

With these 5 little steps that takes less than an hour all told you will have a machine you can let the most clueless users get a hold of and not have to worry about them borking the system I have several "click happy" customers that have been on this system for over 2 years now and not a single bug, runs just as good as when I handed it to them. In fact I have only had to help one that has been on this system, she forgot to log off and her 16 year old niece got on after she left and did God knows what to the system so it wouldn't boot to desktop. 15 minutes on the phone talking her through using Time Machine and she was back to the previous day's snapshot like nothing had ever happened. just to be safe i had her run both an online as well as an offline scan for malware, 100% bug free.

WTF slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42408239)

It would be nice if, you know, the article said WHY they where unique...

real viruses (3, Interesting)

vossman77 (300689) | about a year ago | (#42408243)

I was disappointed to find out this was about computer viruses. Nothing in the description makes relevant to computers until the word malware.

The most unique biological viruses would be much cooler to look at than some stupid man-made computer virus.

Re:real viruses (5, Funny)

DavidClarkeHR (2769805) | about a year ago | (#42408285)

I was disappointed to find out this was about computer viruses. Nothing in the description makes relevant to computers until the word malware.

The most unique biological viruses would be much cooler to look at than some stupid man-made computer virus.

... Then why are you on slashdot? You're essentially walking into a room of dwarves and proclaiming that it is a terrible place to discuss the 10 finest sparling ice-wines this side of faerun.

Re:real viruses (4, Funny)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about a year ago | (#42408401)

I understand your point, but that is a rather misleading analogy, for Slashdot is widely known to be the best possible place to debate the 10 finest sparling ice-wines this side of faerun.

Re:real viruses (0)

JonySuede (1908576) | about a year ago | (#42409009)

I am 6 feet tall and I drink Aberlour cask strength scotch, not some sissies faerun'S iced wine, you insensitive bastardish canadian cloaud

Re:real viruses (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#42411073)

The masthead doesn't say news for geeks, it says news for NERDS. There's nothing nerdier than science. Even though I was writing assembly thirty years ago I agree with the GP that the ten most unique* biological viruses would be far more interesting than the ten most unique pieces of malware.

You're at the wrong site, you need to be at that juvenile site geek.com if you don't want all that icky sciency junk.

* The title is brain-dead stupid. There is no such thing as "most unique".

So ... malware is biological now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42412385)

The masthead doesn't say news for geeks, it says news for NERDS. There's nothing nerdier than science. Even though I was writing assembly thirty years ago I agree with the GP that the ten most unique* biological viruses would be far more interesting than the ten most unique pieces of malware.

You're at the wrong site, you need to be at that juvenile site geek.com if you don't want all that icky sciency junk.

* The title is brain-dead stupid. There is no such thing as "most unique".

Huh. I didn't realize that malware was a biological term. Did you mix up that too?

Re:real viruses (2)

toygeek (473120) | about a year ago | (#42408383)

I'd suggest that maybe you're new here, but I think your UID is lower than mine.

Re:real viruses (2)

the_B0fh (208483) | about a year ago | (#42408561)

What's a lower UID supposed to show?

Re:real viruses (5, Funny)

timeOday (582209) | about a year ago | (#42408673)

What's a lower UID supposed to show?

It really just depends. Too high, and you're a Johnny-come-lately with no sense of slashdot lore. Too low smacks of moderate-to-severe aspeger's and probable basement dwelling. Really, the ideal UID is a bit over half a million.

Re:real viruses (3, Funny)

adolf (21054) | about a year ago | (#42408727)

Everyone knows that all of the best Slashdot UIDs are less than 21055.

Re:real viruses (2)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#42410581)

Some of you 5 digit newbs are OK, but it's really better to be in the low 4s.

Re:real viruses (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about a year ago | (#42411207)

Some of you 5 digit newbs are OK, but it's really better to be in the low 4s.

Hah! Some of us greybeards just stick a couple of short UIDs together. Mine is a 3-digit UID appended to a 4-digit UID, for the maximum of cachet...

Re:real viruses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42409341)

What's a lower UID supposed to show?

It really just depends. Too high, and you're a Johnny-come-lately with no sense of slashdot lore. Too low smacks of moderate-to-severe aspeger's and probable basement dwelling. Really, the ideal UID is a bit over half a million.

If I subtracted half of my UIDs (randomly) from the other half (summed), would I come close? As much as I'd prefer to use those older UIDs to show my geek cred, they're also full of close minded, half-formed opinions that don't reflect several years of education in and out of the educational institutions.
 
Case in point: When I realize I've gone terribly wrong in my comments, I look back at the last few comments I've made in different articles. If they're mostly inflammatory, idiotic or simply racist, I figure it's time to abandon that identity. I could even go back to my 4 digit UID, but then I'd have to own up to some pretty infantile arguments, and I'd prefer to put my past behind me.

Re:real viruses (1)

magic maverick (2615475) | about a year ago | (#42409941)

Quite. This is my third or fourth /. id. I think the best thing to do would be to probably sign up with three or four all at once. And then when you get sick of one identity, you can discard it and you still have a similar level UID.

Or we could all just agree that the number after the name does not indicate anything more than that the account is a certain 'age'.

Re:real viruses (1)

lewiscr (3314) | about a year ago | (#42414223)

I think it indicates that somebody can discuss online, without tainting an identity so badly that it must be abandoned. Do you find yourself spouting inflammatory, idiotic, and racist arguments at your real-life neighbors, then decide it's time to move? My /. account is like a phone number, email address, or street address. I suppose it helps that I'm naturally a lurker.

Don't get me wrong, I've said some stupid shit.

Re:real viruses (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#42411157)

Too low smacks of moderate-to-severe aspeger's and probable basement dwelling.

In my case, it's just a sign of old age. Now get off my lawn!

Re:real viruses (2)

knarf (34928) | about a year ago | (#42409955)

What's a lower UID supposed to show?

A smaller inhibition to giving up privacy and/or a larger urge to 'belong'? I only registered here when they started penalizing anonymous posters, until that time I was happy to discuss shop without having to show any ID.

Re:real viruses (1)

gargleblast (683147) | about a year ago | (#42408701)

I was disappointed to find out this was about computer viruses.

That's nothing. I momentarily thought "Malware - now there's an apt metaphor for rogue DNA".

More Biology (1)

m.shenhav (948505) | about a year ago | (#42410783)

I agree! Considering the impact that life science will have on the coming decades, I want to see more biology in Slashdot.

New virus idea: (0, Flamebait)

u64 (1450711) | about a year ago | (#42408295)

As infected computers are often infected multiple times. Perhaps future viruses should
just wipe the drive and install a clean Linux, and then run their malware job from there.
Sure, it's more complicated but think of the rewards: better uptimes, faster performance,
and great protection from competing viruses.

(Hint: i'm being sarcastic, or cynical.)

Re:New virus idea: (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42408309)

Hint: you're being an asshole

Re:New virus idea: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42408589)

As are you.

Re:New virus idea: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42408687)

As are you as well.

Re:New virus idea: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42408729)

C-C-Combo Breaker!

Oh wait.

Re:New virus idea: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42409039)

ccccocccocccoccaine on prostitute ass ! 60,2% is a bit to strong Jony

What a weak list... (1)

iMouse (963104) | about a year ago | (#42408313)

No ZeroAccess?! I guess it could be argued that portions of ZeroAccess are/were designed with the BlackHole dev kit, but it blows my mind that something as sophisticated, stealth and widespread as ZeroAccess isn't on the list. The method of infection, its resilience/resistance to removal and use of the compromised workstation are pretty unique.

I'm pretty sure that a large chunk of the malware on this list did not have file infecting variants or true "viruses".

I'd like to nominate iTunes on a Mac (-1, Offtopic)

Grayhand (2610049) | about a year ago | (#42408349)

Windows users won't understand but on a Mac iTunes will constantly take over your machine and doesn't like to go away. All you have to do is start your machine or insert a back up CD or DVD with an audio file on it and iTunes launches without asking you. Then the fun begins. They removed ""Hide iTunes" from the top menu so you either have to turn it off or click in the window and mouse over the bottom bar and wait several seconds for the bar to come up then start another software to escape iTunes. It's become one of the most obnoxious softwares I've ever used and now they made a mess of it so it defaults to the "Store" making purchases easier and using anything else a headache. Apparently their marketing department has been put in charge of the software. They are starting to remind me of Sirius Cybernetics in the Hitchhiker books.

Re:I'd like to nominate iTunes on a Mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42408429)

Apple is evil and has been evil in various ways for much of its corporate existence. So why are you voluntarily running a computer with Apple software?

Re:I'd like to nominate iTunes on a Mac (3, Informative)

iMouse (963104) | about a year ago | (#42408483)

...uh. Not sure if sarcasm...

iTunes 11.0.1 on my iMac has "Hide iTunes" and "Hide Others" just like every other version of iTunes I've ever installed.

- Menu Bar
-- iTunes
--- Hide iTunes

I insert an audio CD or video DVD and I'm asked what I want to do with this disc...just like every other version of Mac OS X since who knows when. Have you looked at your settings here?

- System Preferences
-- CDs & DVDs
--- When you insert a music CD:
--- When you insert a video DVD:

Actually, iTunes on Mac OS X runs a hell of a lot better than it does on Windows. Kinda like how poorly Microsoft Office runs on the Mac compared to on Windows.

Re:I'd like to nominate iTunes on a Mac (1)

iMouse (963104) | about a year ago | (#42408497)

Just for good measure, I also threw in a CD that has a bunch of MP3s and MP4 video on it burned as a data disc. Mounted on the desktop...no iTunes, no prompt. Mounted just like any other data disc with data on it.

Re:I'd like to nominate iTunes on a Mac (2)

the_B0fh (208483) | about a year ago | (#42408569)

Why are you presenting facts as if it matters to these idiots?

They just want to wank off bitching about Apple. Let them.

ainslot ftw (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42408455)

Ainslot just gave me inspiration to write a virus to remove all other viruses!

Amusing self promotion in article. (2)

Riceballsan (816702) | about a year ago | (#42408525)

"DarkAngle: A fake antivirus that poses as Panda CloudAntivirus. It takes advantage of the renown of Panda Security's free cloud antivirus to infect as many computers as possible."

I hate to burst your bubble panda, but the average home user, IE the targets for these scams, haven't heard of your software. If I were to write a virus, with the goal of suckering the uneducated home user, my choices of mimicry would be: 1. Norton, 2. McAffee, 3. AVG, 4. webroot, 5. CCleaner, 6. Ad-Aware, 7. MSE/windows defender, 8. Malwarebytes, 9. Bitdefender, 10. Trend Micro.

This rating list has no impact on what is best, what AV's have the best or worse success rating, more what names I could imagine my less computer savy friends and family hearing, and thinking "I've heard of this product before, it's probably legitimate". Panda is a fairly decent product, but far from a household name among typical non-geeks.

Re:Amusing self promotion in article. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42409251)

1. Norton

This brings up an interesting question. If you installed malware that was pretending to be Norton, how would you know?

Re:Amusing self promotion in article. (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | about a year ago | (#42411847)

The malware writers use slightly more honest busyness practice. Oh and if it actually detects a virus other than tracking cookies, it's probably not really norton.

Re:Amusing self promotion in article. (1)

fatphil (181876) | about a year ago | (#42410901)

I see someone's already addressed (1), so on to (2):

Pretending to be McAfee? Erm, you've posted to the wrong story!

Fake FBI warning virus (4, Informative)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year ago | (#42408851)

My vote goes for the fake FBI warning screen that hijacks explorer.exe. It basically informs users that they have done something very illegal and must pay a "fine" to unlock the computer in the form of MoneyPak cards. Screenshot here [yoocare.com] (not my link, just found online as an example)

BTW, you can remove this SOB using a bootable Kaspersky Rescue Disk [kaspersky.com] . It runs a form of Linux that will boot into an anti-virus desktop console. Assuming you have internet access, it will most likely contain NIC drivers to download the latest defs for you prior to the scan/removal process.

Good luck!

Re:Fake FBI warning virus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42409365)

Mod up. It's not genius, it's not earth shattering, but it's so concise and easy to follow that any ape with a cerebellum can do it.

Re:Fake FBI warning virus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42413837)

I think that's what they called the "police" virus (Only Panda could make up a name that stupid). Recently it also pretends to be from the DoJ.

I'm surprised ZeroAccess isn't on their list - probably because their technicians aren't good enough to pick up on it.

Re:Fake FBI warning virus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42415813)

Removing the "Police Virus" is simple. Safe-mode, run Combofix, Gone! :)

Re:Fake FBI warning virus (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year ago | (#42423711)

The version I removed couldn't be cleaned in Safe-Mode. It was well coded to prevent professional cleanup while in the OS. Looking through my IT support ticket history, I documented removing 31 instances of mxroh_v_mf.exe scattered throughout the drive all cross referenced. So if you missed just one, the registry would pull from another directory and re-enable with replication. This fucker had self preservation hard coded as its #1 priority!

Re:Fake FBI warning virus (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year ago | (#42423719)

Forgot to mention. It went by the name of Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Blocker.aaah (Internet Crime Complaint Center scam) according to Kaspersky

The Most Unique Virus of 2012? Windows 8. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42408905)

The Most Unique Virus of 2012?
Windows 8, an unusable operating system by Microsoft.

Scientology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42408995)

Is PandaLabs related to Panda Antivirus, which is related to scientology?

The curious are wondering...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikel_Urizarbarrena

Viruses? (-1)

tanujt (1909206) | about a year ago | (#42409015)

...

Or should it be Virii?

Re:Viruses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42409349)

Or should it be Virii?

Generally speaking, using "virii" repeatedly in a post is likely to be a successful troll. However, it isn't strong enough to stand alone, trolling wise.

Best of luck in your future trolling endeavors.

Re:Viruses? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42409785)

Sure. One can use words like "virii" and "boxen" if he really wants to appear like a dork.

Astroturfing garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42409033)

N/T

viruses? or computer viruses (1)

PixetaledPikachu (1007305) | about a year ago | (#42409567)

The word virus refers to biological viruses, not computer viruses

Re:viruses? or computer viruses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42418795)

And the word computer refers to a person who does calculations, not one of these new-fangled electronic "computers".

Pedant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42409729)

Enough with the "most unique"! Its either unique or not, damnit!

None of these as unique [sic] as the DIY virus (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about a year ago | (#42411347)

You old-timers remember, the email that went:
" Here's the DIY virus. All you have to do is 1) read this email, 2) send a copy to all your friends, 3) randomly delete files from the system directory"

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...