• BlackBart (unregistered)

    Queue comments about how Linux is so much better than all that GUI stuff in Windows and how you're so much better by having to type 'sudo rm -rf /' instead of CTRL+A, + Boss Hand Slap + Enter.

    I wonder if the subsequent virii removed the previous ones or just chained the infection?

  • Bill Frist (unregistered)

    Frist. Bill Frist.

  • Zylon (cs)

    "Guillermo juggled a set of contracts with local businesses that needed help, but couldn't afford a full time network administrator."

    Guillermo couldn't afford a full time network administrator?

  • Dank (unregistered) in reply to Zylon

    You mean he was too cheap to hire a full time network administrator. Wait, that's not how the sentence was intended to read?

  • Jeff (unregistered)

    Run ALL the things?

  • snoofle (cs)

    So he accidentally attempted to launch 10,000 programs/viruses/whatever.

    Don't recent versions of windows figure out that you probably didn't do it on purpose and ask if that's what you really want to do before blindly doing it?

  • The Enterpriser (cs)

    I guess he was running a special version of windows which didn't say "are you sure you want to run all 10,000 of these files at the same time".

    Also, about that time where he was working for 6 companies at once.. at the same time.. sounds like someone might not have been filling in their time sheet correctly.

    What a moran.

  • Anonymous Coward (unregistered)

    So I'm confused here. He selected all the emails in the quarantine folder, which had infected attachments, then accidentally opened the messages. Check. I'm just missing the part where this is necessarily a bad thing, i.e. his computer becomes infected or something like that.

    How does this lead to running the infected attachments? Is his email software so insecure that it a) opens attachments upon message reading, or b) shows remote images and scripts in html messages even when they're in the specific quarantine folder?

    Do this in Gmail, Thunderbird, Yahoo mail, many university webmail interfaces, etc, even on just your inbox, and all you see is text, a list of links to download the attachments, and a button to show remote content. (unless you've whitelisted the sender)

  • The Enterpriser (cs) in reply to Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward:
    So I'm confused here. He selected all the emails in the quarantine folder, which had infected attachments, then accidentally opened the messages. Check. I'm just missing the part where this is necessarily a bad thing, i.e. his computer becomes infected or something like that.

    How does this lead to running the infected attachments? Is his email software so insecure that it a) opens attachments upon message reading, or b) shows remote images and scripts in html messages even when they're in the specific quarantine folder?

    Do this in Gmail, Thunderbird, Yahoo mail, many university webmail interfaces, etc, even on just your inbox, and all you see is text, a list of links to download the attachments, and a button to show remote content. (unless you've whitelisted the sender)

    FTA:

    The virus scanner on the server had archived nearly ten thousand suspicious files

    The files were on the servers filesystem in a quarantine folder. This is not referring to emails with attachments in a mail client inbox.

  • J. (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous Coward

    He didn't open the messages, he opened the quarantined attachments.

  • Machtyn (unregistered)

    My confusion is why he was letting a large number of incoming and outgoing emails continue. It sounds like there was a hijacked system acting as a spam repeater. You'd think this would be something to investigate and fix.

  • AC (unregistered)

    So, just to get this straight: There was a virus scanner that had all of the email-found viruses quarantined, but not a virus scanner that checked file system access?

    B0rked.

  • neonzebra (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous Coward

    Read the example file name again. What do you think a file named hotxxx1.jpg contains? Now imagine opening up 10,000 of these files while your boss is looking.

  • Those who live in glass houses... (unregistered)

    I wish all you ivory tower wannabes would get off your high horses. Enter is delete! Do you even know what Enter means? It means to put in. Delete is a in. Now STFU.

  • andres (unregistered) in reply to BlackBart

    Even better "sudo rm -rf . /" vs "sudo rm -rf ./"... yeah that happen to me once. The server was never the same again.

  • word usage pedant (unregistered) in reply to BlackBart
    BlackBart:
    Queue comments about how Linux is so much better than all that GUI stuff in Windows and how you're so much better by having to type 'sudo rm -rf /' instead of CTRL+A, + Boss Hand Slap + Enter.

    I wonder if the subsequent virii removed the previous ones or just chained the infection?

    The phrase is "cue" comments. The metaphor we are suggesting here is that of a play, with you as the director, and you believe it is now time for the pro-Linux comments to come in. So you give the cue.

    The more you know....

  • The Enterpriser (cs) in reply to neonzebra
    neonzebra:
    Read the example file name again. What do you think a file named hotxxx1.jpg contains? Now imagine opening up 10,000 of these files while your boss is looking.

    you missed the .exe

  • wizzard (cs) in reply to neonzebra
    neonzebra:
    Read the example file name again. What do you think a file named hotxxx1.jpg contains? Now imagine opening up 10,000 of these files while your boss is looking.

    Read the example file name one last time.

  • mh (unregistered) in reply to word usage pedant
    word usage pedant:
    BlackBart:
    Queue comments about how Linux is so much better than all that GUI stuff in Windows and how you're so much better by having to type 'sudo rm -rf /' instead of CTRL+A, + Boss Hand Slap + Enter.

    I wonder if the subsequent virii removed the previous ones or just chained the infection?

    The phrase is "cue" comments. The metaphor we are suggesting here is that of a play, with you as the director, and you believe it is now time for the pro-Linux comments to come in. So you give the cue.

    The more you know....

    "Queue" is fine. Line 'em up, one after the other.

  • coffee (unregistered) in reply to BlackBart
    BlackBart:
    Queue comments about how Linux is so much better than all that GUI stuff in Windows and how you're so much better by having to type 'sudo rm -rf /' instead of CTRL+A, + Boss Hand Slap + Enter.

    I wonder if the subsequent virii removed the previous ones or just chained the infection?

    Because virii!

  • hoodaticus (cs)

    If you want something done right, lock your boss in the tape safe before you do it yourself.

  • tharpa (cs)
    1. What is the plural of virus?
    2. Explain.
  • Tim (unregistered)

    Isn't the plural of virus "viridae"?

  • UnsungHero (unregistered)

    It's clearly viruses.

  • Daniel (unregistered) in reply to BlackBart
    BlackBart:
    Queue comments about how Linux is so much better than all that GUI stuff in Windows and how you're so much better by having to type 'sudo rm -rf /' instead of CTRL+A, + Boss Hand Slap + Enter.

    Even GUI Linux would have been better in this instance. It isn't going to run a file as a executable simply because of the file name. You have to set the executable bit.

    Thus do this exact same thing on a linux box and you have to go out of your way to screw up, on windows all you need is to fit enter.

    Granted that does mean that Windows, Just Works.

  • trtrwtf (unregistered) in reply to The Enterpriser
    The Enterpriser:
    neonzebra:
    Read the example file name again. What do you think a file named hotxxx1.jpg contains? Now imagine opening up 10,000 of these files while your boss is looking.

    you missed the .exe

    I don't get to see these marvels, because I use gmail for my personal mail and my work has spam filters that catch all of this stuff, so I'm just guessing here, but I would suspect that these files actually do show an image. If they didn't, the dumbass user who opens up the file might start to wonder why "hotxxx.jpg" (extensions are hidden by default under windows, yeah?) doesn't open up, and they might maybe figure out that something was up.

    So among other things, yeah, I would guess that this might try to show 10,000 images of improbable acts of copulation. (In addition to installing 10,000 pieces of malicious code.)

  • anon (unregistered) in reply to tharpa
    tharpa:
    1) What is the plural of virus? 2) Explain.
    1. Viruses 2. There was no Latin plural of virus, so the standard English pluralization is correct. Making up a word form that sounds Latin but isn't is rarely correct.
  • IWasTrolled (unregistered) in reply to BlackBart
    BlackBart:
    Queue comments about how Linux is so much better than all that GUI stuff in Windows and how you're so much better by having to type 'sudo rm -rf /' instead of CTRL+A, + Boss Hand Slap + Enter.

    I wonder if the subsequent virii removed the previous ones or just chained the infection?

    *cue

  • Child of the '20s (unregistered)

    Doesn't "XXX" stand for "whiskey?"

  • not Jimmy Wales (unregistered) in reply to tharpa
    tharpa:
    1) What is the plural of virus? 2) Explain.

    The plural of "virus" is "viruses".

    There are several reasons:

    1. Virus is a noun of the English language. Unless otherwise stated, nouns are formed by adding an "s"
    2. Yes, "virus" comes from the Latin word "virus". But the Latin word means "rod", not "a tiny organism". So English "virus" != Latin "virus", so the rules of Latin grammar don't apply here.
    3. Even if the rules of Latin grammar applied here, "virus" is a fourth declension -- thus the Latin plural is "virus" -- long u. Were it a second declension noun, then the plural form would be "viri". Were it a third declension noun, then the plural form would be "virii". If it were an -i stem noun. (Third declension nouns are a grammatical class all to themselves.
    4. Tom Christiansen has a useful essay on this issue. It is in the top 10 hits if you Google for "plural form of virus".
    5. The most obnoxious virus created was the work of that pinhead who insisted the proper plural of "virus" was anything except "viruses." Maybe it was Paula whats-her-name.

    Captcha: aliquam. Appropriate.

  • Larrik (unregistered)

    If this was an OS X server, Enter would have just renamed the files.

  • Isaac Washington, "Your Bartender" (unregistered) in reply to Child of the '20s

    Why yes, yes it does.

  • Isaac Washington, "Your Bartender" (unregistered) in reply to Child of the '20s

    Why yes, yes it does.

  • Isaac Washington, "Your Bartender" (unregistered) in reply to Isaac Washington, "Your Bartender"

    Why yes, yest it does.

  • Isaac Washington, "Your Bartender" (unregistered) in reply to Isaac Washington, "Your Bartender"

    See?! Too much whiskey and I am slurring my speech.

  • Stark_ (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    The Enterpriser:
    neonzebra:
    Read the example file name again. What do you think a file named hotxxx1.jpg contains? Now imagine opening up 10,000 of these files while your boss is looking.

    you missed the .exe

    I don't get to see these marvels, because I use gmail for my personal mail and my work has spam filters that catch all of this stuff, so I'm just guessing here, but I would suspect that these files actually do show an image. If they didn't, the dumbass user who opens up the file might start to wonder why "hotxxx.jpg" (extensions are hidden by default under windows, yeah?) doesn't open up, and they might maybe figure out that something was up.

    So among other things, yeah, I would guess that this might try to show 10,000 images of improbable acts of copulation. (In addition to installing 10,000 pieces of malicious code.)

    Unfortunately, the anti-virus software prevents the pretty images of fornication in addition to teh e-vil codez

  • anonymouser (unregistered) in reply to Child of the '20s
    Child of the '20s:
    Doesn't "XXX" stand for "whiskey?"

    or gunpowder.

  • Gabriel (unregistered)

    Unicorn-virii on Ctrl + A

  • PedanticCurmudgeon (cs) in reply to IWasTrolled
    IWasTrolled:
    BlackBart:
    Queue comments about how Linux is so much better than all that GUI stuff in Windows and how you're so much better by having to type 'sudo rm -rf /' instead of CTRL+A, + Boss Hand Slap + Enter.

    I wonder if the subsequent virii removed the previous ones or just chained the infection?

    *cue
    +1 for meta-troll.

  • @Deprecated (cs) in reply to Child of the '20s
    Child of the '20s:
    Doesn't "XXX" stand for "whiskey?"

    It stands for Amsterdam. [image] http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/nl-amsdm.html

  • zAPP (unregistered)

    The plural of virus is wiruz, because you get them from warez.

  • Some damn Yank (unregistered) in reply to andres
    andres:
    Even better "sudo rm -rf . /" vs "sudo rm -rf ./"... yeah that happen to me once. The server was never the same again.
    Why? Didn't your backups work?
  • Matt Westwood (cs) in reply to anon
    anon:
    tharpa:
    1) What is the plural of virus? 2) Explain.
    1. Viruses 2. There was no Latin plural of virus, so the standard English pluralization is correct. Making up a word form that sounds Latin but isn't is rarely correct.

    Even if there were, it would be "viri", as "virii" would be the plural of "virius".

    Although, if "virus" were a fourth-declension noun as opposed to the more usual second-declension, its plural would be "virus" where the "-us" is long, the pronunciation being something like "viroose", which I presume could be a colossal great illness with antlers.

  • Matt Westwood (cs) in reply to @Deprecated
    @Deprecated:
    Child of the '20s:
    Doesn't "XXX" stand for "whiskey?"

    It stands for Amsterdam. [image] http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/nl-amsdm.html

    Or it could be like beer (6X, XXXX etc.) but a little weaker than you want.

  • trtrwtf (unregistered) in reply to Matt Westwood
    Matt Westwood:
    anon:
    tharpa:
    1) What is the plural of virus? 2) Explain.
    1. Viruses 2. There was no Latin plural of virus, so the standard English pluralization is correct. Making up a word form that sounds Latin but isn't is rarely correct.

    Even if there were, it would be "viri", as "virii" would be the plural of "virius".

    Although, if "virus" were a fourth-declension noun as opposed to the more usual second-declension, its plural would be "virus" where the "-us" is long, the pronunciation being something like "viroose", which I presume could be a colossal great illness with antlers.

    Like zuneisis, you mean?

  • Matt Westwood (cs) in reply to not Jimmy Wales
    not Jimmy Wales:
    tharpa:
    1) What is the plural of virus? 2) Explain.

    The plural of "virus" is "viruses".

    There are several reasons:

    1. Virus is a noun of the English language. Unless otherwise stated, nouns are formed by adding an "s"
    2. Yes, "virus" comes from the Latin word "virus". But the Latin word means "rod", not "a tiny organism". So English "virus" != Latin "virus", so the rules of Latin grammar don't apply here.
    3. Even if the rules of Latin grammar applied here, "virus" is a fourth declension -- thus the Latin plural is "virus" -- long u. Were it a second declension noun, then the plural form would be "viri". Were it a third declension noun, then the plural form would be "virii". If it were an -i stem noun. (Third declension nouns are a grammatical class all to themselves.
    4. Tom Christiansen has a useful essay on this issue. It is in the top 10 hits if you Google for "plural form of virus".
    5. The most obnoxious virus created was the work of that pinhead who insisted the proper plural of "virus" was anything except "viruses." Maybe it was Paula whats-her-name.

    Captcha: aliquam. Appropriate.

    Damn you, Wales. You beat me to it and I didn't read it till I'd already posted. Respect.

  • Captain Ahab (unregistered) in reply to Matt Westwood
    Matt Westwood:
    not Jimmy Wales:
    tharpa:
    1) What is the plural of virus? 2) Explain.
    blah, blah

    Damn you, Wales!

    I couldn't have said it better myself.

  • I do not prefer the ipod (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    I don't get to see these marvels, because I use gmail for my personal mail and my work has spam filters that catch all of this stuff, so I'm just guessing here, but I would suspect that these files actually do show an image. If they didn't, the dumbass user who opens up the file might start to wonder why "hotxxx.jpg" (extensions are hidden by default under windows, yeah?) doesn't open up, and they might maybe figure out that something was up.

    So among other things, yeah, I would guess that this might try to show 10,000 images of improbable acts of copulation. (In addition to installing 10,000 pieces of malicious code.)

    You are so sheltered. Wanna take a walk on the wild side?

  • brazzy (cs) in reply to AC
    AC:
    So, just to get this straight: There was a virus scanner that had all of the email-found viruses quarantined, but not a virus scanner that checked file system access?
    Read again. It *did* check file system access. For 10k files at the same time. Presumably leading to a a few hours of disk thrashing.
  • Samuel Adams (unregistered) in reply to Matt Westwood
    Comment held for moderation.

Leave a comment on “The Plural of Virus is not Virii”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article