On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:27:13 GMT, Chris  Tolley 
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>
>> "Chris Tolley"  wrote in message 
>> news:cya7ibzv7gv4.zxst5ccv0bhg$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the operation you're talking about it was the police in the US that
>>>> managed to raid the building where the paedophile ring were running the 
>>>> site
>>>> from before they could destroy any of the information. There was a list 
>>>> of
>>>> people and credit card payments many of whom were in this country. It 
>>>> then
>>>> went all quiet on the operation. This is because it was discovered that 
>>>> the
>>>> majority of credit cards had been stolen as examination of peoples 
>>>> computers
>>>> revealed no evidence of accessing the sites but a lot did have evidence 
>>>> of
>>>> being infected with a trojan.
>>>
>>> This doesn't make sense. If cards were stolen, one can imagine that
>>> there would be no evidence of downloading material on those computers.
>>> But why should they be infected with a particular trojan?
>>> -- 
>> Yes it does make sense. A trojan can be contained in any file including 
>> images and is activated when you open the file which can be an innocent one 
>> that the trojan has been added to. Just opening a junk mailing can do this 
>> if the picture is embedded within the text as it then opens automatically 
>> with the email. Once the computer has been infected with the trojan it can 
>> allow access to that computer by someone when online with programs such as 
>> Back Orifice for example. With broadband most computers are online from when 
>> you switch them on. This person can then access the information on the 
>> infected computer to obtain information such as a person's name, address and 
>> card details. These will then be used fraudulently such as in this case a 
>> subscription on the site in the US used by the paedophiles.
>
>Yes, that makes a kind of sense, but you initially said the *cards* had
>been stolen. If you had said the *card details* had been stolen, then I
>wouldn't have asked the question.
>
>Even so, since there isn't for example a mandatory
>HKEY_LOCAL_USERS_CREDIT_CARD_NUMBER value in the Windows registry, one
>still wonders how people's computers end up containing such information.
>;-)
>
That convenient function in Mr Gates's excellent <cough!> software
which stores details entered into forms ?

Charles Ellson wrote:
>I wrote:
>>Even so, since there isn't for example a mandatory
>>HKEY_LOCAL_USERS_CREDIT_CARD_NUMBER value in the Windows registry, one
>>still wonders how people's computers end up containing such information.
>>;-)
>>
> That convenient function in Mr Gates's excellent <cough!> software
> which stores details entered into forms ?

Hmm. I've turned all such things off, and set my browser to ask me about
cookies etc. (which I always decline unless the site will not work
without them). But  yes, I suppose less savvy users may have such
details stored on their machines.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9628971.html
(D2991 (Class 07) at Eastleigh Works, Nov 1988)

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:59:06 +0100, Chris  Tolley wrote
>>
>> That convenient function in Mr Gates's excellent <cough!> software
>> which stores details entered into forms ?
> 
> Hmm. I've turned all such things off, and set my browser to ask me about
> cookies etc. (which I always decline unless the site will not work
> without them). But  yes, I suppose less savvy users may have such
> details stored on their machines.

One could argue that less savvy users buy Windows in the first place :-)

Stimpy wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:59:06 +0100, Chris  Tolley wrote
>>>
>>> That convenient function in Mr Gates's excellent <cough!> software
>>> which stores details entered into forms ?
>> 
>> Hmm. I've turned all such things off, and set my browser to ask me about
>> cookies etc. (which I always decline unless the site will not work
>> without them). But  yes, I suppose less savvy users may have such
>> details stored on their machines.
> 
> One could argue that less savvy users buy Windows in the first place :-)

I bought the computer. Windows came with it. ;-)

But your point is otherwise well made.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632841.html
(33 026 at Basingstoke, 20 Apr 1996)

Stimpy wrote:
> 
> One could argue that less savvy users buy Windows in the first place :-)
> 
That's not entirely fair.  The logical way of choosing an operating 
system is to decide which software you want to run, and then choose the 
operating system that will run it.  Of course, sometimes there are 
alternative software programs with similar functionality on the other 
operating systems, which gives a bit more flexibility in your choice.

For instance, I just bought the Windows XP version of the Asus Eee.  I 
also run a desktop Mac at home, and have to use a Windows laptop for 
work.  I have an old Windows laptop that I used to use to run some 
Windows-specific applications, too.

I would have preferred a Mac or Linux system (only the latter is an 
alternative for a sub-notebook like the Eee), but I wanted to run four 
items of software that are only available for Windoze: ActiveSync for 
transferring data with my pda, the DB travel planner (ob rail), Multimap 
mapping software, and MathCAD.  In each case, there is no alternative 
software on the other operating systems which could replace the Windows 
software to my satisfaction.

Having said that, it was a pain in the ar*e to do the regedit hack to 
move the Documents and Settings directory from C: to D: to give more 
room for both system and settings files.  Unix-based systems are much 
easier to reconfigure...
-- 
Jeremy Double  {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdouble/collections/72157603834894248/