The All New Linux vs Windows MegaSuperThread

MTK358 · 08-23-2010, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn

iTunesSetup.exe???

Why did you post that here?

Kenny_Strawn · 08-23-2010, 12:34 PM

Run it and find out... It says what it's not.

MTK358 · 08-23-2010, 12:40 PM

Is it a windows executable? If so, I simply cannot run it.

dracolich · 08-23-2010, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrLove73

Windows kernel, at least original for NT was actually much better then Linux kernel in those days. Designers came from DEC (~20 of them) where they worked on new version of VMS until DEC pulled the plug on that project.

Windows 2000 was continuation of NT, with all of the positive sides. Interesting is that driver developers complained that writing drivers on NT was too hard, since they had to do it in the correct way, no shortcuts to make it easy and dirty. When Windows XP came out, most of the security layers where turned off to allow execution of Windows 95 programs and allowed mindless idiots to use it with out having to learn anything. It also allowed viruses and malware to plague and Security program developers to earn bundles of money.

That explains a lot. One of my IT coworkers and I have always felt Win2K was the best Window$ version as far as stability and security. XP felt like the beginning of both dumbing down the UI and M$'s focus on anti-piracy.

MTK358 · 08-23-2010, 02:44 PM

Kenny_Strawn's executable is actually a 32-bit Linux executable (I tested it with the file command), not a Windows executable as he claims.

He sent me an email with the code and it looks like a fork bomb. I'm not sure if that's really it (I don't want to run it) but it's likely. He stressed me not to say it publically, but if it's really malicious code, I feel obligated to.

rkelsen · 08-23-2010, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTK358

Kenny_Strawn's executable is actually a 32-bit Linux executable (I tested it with the file command), not a Windows executable as he claims.

He sent me an email with the code and it looks like a fork bomb. I'm not sure if that's really it (I don't want to run it) but it's likely. He stressed me not to say it publically, but if it's really malicious code, I feel obligated to.

This isn't the first time he's done something like this.

He obviously doesn't understand the nature of this forum, and should be banned for posting this if it is what you say it is.

MTK358 · 08-23-2010, 07:06 PM

This is the message, it was titled "Shhh! Source code to Windows executable in the MegaSuperThread":

Quote:

This is a message from Kenny_Strawn at LinuxQuestions.org ( http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/ ). The LinuxQuestions.org owners cannot accept any responsibility for the contents of the email.

To email Kenny_Strawn, you can use this online form:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ember&u=513767

OR, by email:
mailto:kenny.strawn@gmail.com

This is the message:

[QUOTE=MTK358;4075266]Is it a windows executable? If so, I simply cannot run it.[/QUOTE]

[code]
#include <<unistd.h>

int main(void)
{
int x = 5;
while (x < 10)
{
fork();
x = x;
}
return 0;
}
[/code]

Please do not tell anyone!

Come on, it even uses Unix-specific headers!

And what's the "x = x" for?

MrCode · 08-23-2010, 07:08 PM

Yep, looks like a (poorly designed) fork bomb to me...

Quote:

And what's the "x = x" for?

It's pointless; x will retain its value unless you explicitly tell it to increment/decrement, so saying "x = x;" is doing nothing, ultimately.

I have no idea how Kenny thought this was supposed to work...

exvor · 08-23-2010, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn

http://5ykx2q.bay.livefilestore.com/...tup.exe?psid=1

Kenny I would take care in posting links to malicious code as I am sure the admins would not take too kindly to you posting. I have refrained from reporting this for now so please do not post more.

konsolebox · 08-24-2010, 04:02 AM

Fork bombs may be prevented:
http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/linux-...r-process.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_bomb

MrCode · 08-24-2010, 04:09 AM

You might be able to do that on a *nix system, but what about on Windows (if someone wrote/successfully executed a proper Windows fork bomb)?

konsolebox · 08-24-2010, 04:42 AM

Actually, even in *nix...
Anyway there's always a way like a monitoring service.

cantab · 08-24-2010, 09:12 AM

My guess is "x=x;" shuts the compiler up if it would otherwise complain about the infinite loop.

MTK358 · 08-24-2010, 10:20 AM

Or he could have said:

Code:

int main()
{
    while (1)
        fork();
}

easuter · 08-24-2010, 10:31 AM

Quote:

And what's the "x = x" for?

Dunno...but judging from his past posts on programming topics I wouldn't try putting much effort into understanding the code he writes. Eg: This, this and this.

What I don't get is the pathological need to post malicious binaries on the forum and ask other users to run it, after being warned by moderators the first time.