@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@DustinB3403

Yes, I'm invested in this particular topic, pretty much because I decided to finally say something about how I see every thread go here in ML, and it happened to me (again). I was annoyed for myself, but also felt that for other posters they would likely experience the same thing.

I'm discovering that maybe this is not a community for me.

So, to be sure what I'm understanding as the issue, is really that it is me. You are upset that I get invested in topics and have a rather vigorous discussion that you perceive, and maybe are correct, is argumentative and that that takes the topic in a direction that you do not agree with?

Nope.

@DustinB3403

Yes, I'm invested in this particular topic, pretty much because I decided to finally say something about how I see every thread go here in ML, and it happened to me (again). I was annoyed for myself, but also felt that for other posters they would likely experience the same thing.

I'm discovering that maybe this is not a community for me.

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@scottalanmiller

Holy crap, yes.

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

But see - that's not the topic. The initial topic is that I didn't like how MY topic was handled, and for that I feel you are railroading me. A secondary topic is that it happens here a lot - belaboring the point until the other person gives up. There's absolutely no reason this conversation should be this long. I asked to please have my thread forked because it did not pertain to my original topic; but instead of it getting done, now I'm in the wrong for wanting my topic to flow in a way that works for me, and I have to justify it to you.

You do realise that we forked your topic hours ago and this is not it any longer, right?

Jesus Scott, seriously.

Then I am confused. You said that we didn't fork. But we did, multiple times and your original topic died with just twelve posts.

I forked it the moment that I had a chance. No other mod saw it in the interim. Even when I did fork it, it wasn't fast enough and people were cross posting for a bit, and we got that cleaned up to.

You did, but not without flak for wanting it forked and how conversation should flow organically...I mean it wasn't like it was done immediately simply because I requested it.

Dude. You guys figure out what works, or don't. I don't care. I'm probably not going to respond here again, which is saying a lot. I'm a pretty tolerant and laid back guy, but this...this was not worth my time.

@scottalanmiller

Holy crap, yes.

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

But see - that's not the topic. The initial topic is that I didn't like how MY topic was handled, and for that I feel you are railroading me. A secondary topic is that it happens here a lot - belaboring the point until the other person gives up. There's absolutely no reason this conversation should be this long. I asked to please have my thread forked because it did not pertain to my original topic; but instead of it getting done, now I'm in the wrong for wanting my topic to flow in a way that works for me, and I have to justify it to you.

You do realise that we forked your topic hours ago and this is not it any longer, right?

Jesus Scott, seriously.

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

It's like buying a book called "How to Drywall," and at the end of the book we're talking about the history of wall repair.

What you're proposing is that each topic is like a magazine about drywall - with many sub topics and articles, but there's no heading, no separation from section to section. It's ADHD in physical form.

But it is neither, it is a conversation. Not a pre-organized book or magazine.

Then remove the capability to title your posts.

But then people would not know that we are having a topic right now specifically about when things are or are not derailments.

That makes no sense Scott, I'm sorry.

Then why have groups or categories here? By your logic, everything should be free-form and not have a topic at all.

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

It's like buying a book called "How to Drywall," and at the end of the book we're talking about the history of wall repair.

What you're proposing is that each topic is like a magazine about drywall - with many sub topics and articles, but there's no heading, no separation from section to section. It's ADHD in physical form.

But it is neither, it is a conversation. Not a pre-organized book or magazine.

Then remove the capability to title your posts.

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

It seems to be that there is a common thread (pun intended) that every time anyone disputes anything here, they are railroaded into submission, and it seems to be happening here.

Well there are two possible ways for it to go. Either we are railroading into submission by just accepting the OP opinion without discussion. Or if we discussion the opposing point we get told we are railroading people into submission.

Isn't the complaint then that I'm not just letting you dictate but am proposing the counter argument? If I didn't, wouldn't you be the one railroading rather than me (which is what you are implying.)

But see - that's not the topic. The initial topic is that I didn't like how MY topic was handled, and for that I feel you are railroading me. A secondary topic is that it happens here a lot - belaboring the point until the other person gives up. There's absolutely no reason this conversation should be this long. I asked to please have my thread forked because it did not pertain to my original topic; but instead of it getting done, now I'm in the wrong for wanting my topic to flow in a way that works for me, and I have to justify it to you.

Now we're having this conversation that's taken up a good portion of my morning because you can't or won't understand that some people think differently than you and might want to use the community differently than you - and you need them to explain it to you as if we're the oddballs.

@DustinB3403 said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in [Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork](/topic/9098/ransomware-conversation-derailment-

As a seasoned user of the Internet, I have trained my discerning eye to determine when that might be about to happen.

So only a seasoned user should create new topics then as they know when a new topic should be created.

Everyone else is still discussing the original thread, but with new details.

This is after it was forked - to your point, it's probably due to how things are moderated. If a person can't determine when they should start a new thread, the moderator should do it before it gets too far down the road.

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

Start a new thread of your own if you want to discuss the tangents.

So, in the case in question, who would have done that, for example? At what point did it change topics?

How about I ask you?

Why don't you tell me where you think it shifted?

Here are the first three comments.

So which one do you feel was off topic? If the post was purely information and did not warrant further discussion, all three are "off topic" but that measure.

One is joking-ish. One is stating that he avoided it. One was raising the issue of users not caring and being annoyed by the resulting situation.

All three are organically following the topic, none are in a response to a question or needed. All three would result in you wanting to unsub from the topic as they don't provide value back to the OP given that there is no question to answer.

So by that measure, I'd say every response was off topic. But I don't agree with that assessment.

Of course you don't, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. The thing is - and I can't believe I'm writing this - is if you are creating a new point that warrants additional discussion that is not directly related to the original topic at hand, it should be forked to a new topic. As a seasoned user of the Internet, I have trained my discerning eye to determine when that might be about to happen, and so I commented, politely, to please start a new one, and everyone ignored that and kept on going anyway.

At the end of the day guys, the way the topics flow is a hot mess.

It's like buying a book called "How to Drywall," and at the end of the book we're talking about the history of wall repair.

What you're proposing is that each topic is like a magazine about drywall - with many sub topics and articles, but there's no heading, no separation from section to section. It's ADHD in physical form.

It seems to be that there is a common thread (pun intended) that every time anyone disputes anything here, they are railroaded into submission, and it seems to be happening here.

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

Start a new thread of your own if you want to discuss the tangents.

So, in the case in question, who would have done that, for example? At what point did it change topics?

How about I ask you?

Why don't you tell me where you think it shifted?

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

It might seem like every thread does this... that's because we have a vibrant community of people who actually discuss the topics. To the person who has an intended line of discussion in mind, everything feels like a derailment. To the people having a natural conversation, it isn't a derailment, it's one continuous line of thought and conversation.

That can work, but not in a linear fashion like Mangolassi's, Spiceworks, or other topic/response based communities.....

But is this not the purpose of these communities? Reddit does have a system for this, it is also impossible to follow except for after the conversation is over. While it is happening, it is useless.

At least here we have forking so once a topic slows down enough to do the forking, we can make different topics out of it when appropriate.

IMO, forking should be the exception, not the rule. You shouldn't have to come in and clean up topics without some form of self-moderation and determine that "hey, maybe this isn't related specifically with the OP, why not create a new topic?"

Again, I'm not here for organic conversation about the history of backups and work ethics. I shouldn't have to unsubscribe from my own topic because people can't control themselves and create their own thread.

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

What you say is bad, sounds to be like a healthy discussion. If you had a talk with people in real life and it died in ten seconds and no one looked to help each other understand the factors and grow, that would be boring at least and potentially quite bad.

That every topic does it here shows that there are lots of people who really care. It's not like it is the same discussion every time, it's a unique continuation of the original topic.

But I didn't ask. I didn't ask for people to comment on anything BUT the Cerber ransomware. It's like you're sitting in a room, and I put a sign on the door "Ransomware making the rounds" and you come in and start talking about backups - - - that's just rude.

What I'm saying is - If the conversation dies, then so be it. That's how these kinds of topics go. Start a new thread of your own if you want to discuss the tangents. If I'm unsubbing from my own topic, there's something wrong.

@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

@BRRABill said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:

I think what he means is every topic get derailed, in the same way, by the same people.

Also the same in every community, there are only the people who are active to have the conversations. And yes, every thread grows, but does not get derailed. I hate the term derailment, it's not what happens. It's that topics don't continue in the intended or expected direction, it is very much not the same as a derailment. It's just the natural extension of any topic discussion.

It might seem like every thread does this... that's because we have a vibrant community of people who actually discuss the topics. To the person who has an intended line of discussion in mind, everything feels like a derailment. To the people having a natural conversation, it isn't a derailment, it's one continuous line of thought and conversation.

That can work, but not in a linear fashion like Mangolassi's, Spiceworks, or other topic/response based communities. It does work work for sites like Reddit where each subtopic/diversion branches and you can still follow the main flow.

I can't tell you how many times I look to a community post looking for information specific to my question and see a bunch of noise cluttering up the topic. It's like trying to have a conversation when someone has the radio on static at 90db. If I were coming here to look for information about Cerber, or protecting my systems from this specific malware, I'd abandon it as soon as I scrolled down to the 4th post.

This happens ALL THE TIME here, and instead of saying "yeah, you have a point," I'm just going to hear how I'm wrong and it is how things should be. That's fine, but that's also why people abandon communities and move somewhere else. Every time I post here, this is my experience. A topic that should be a few responses deep ends up with a back and forth for pages and pages. I mean, the notifications for the updates are useless at that point and I have to unsubscribe to my OWN topic because it has absolutely nothing to do with what I wanted to discuss.

@wirestyle22

@wirestyle22 said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:

@Rob-Dunn said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:

@scottalanmiller said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:

@Rob-Dunn said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:

I think it's great that there is a discussion about the implications of backing/not backing up data, but I don't see why this conversation has to derail.

Any conversation that grows organically is not derailed. It's important aspects of the topic that were simply not envisioned as the ones that would be important to the conversation at the outset.

...and this is why I don't post here often. Every time I post anything or try to follow a topic here on ML, it devolves into an argument between usually you and someone else who doesn't agree with you. So now, this side convo is occurring which has very little to do with the original topic.

I don't mean offense to you or anyone else here, but I'm being totally honest here - this is exactly why I don't like interacting on ML.

I think that is the case sometimes. Not always though

It has been the case for nearly every topic I've been a part of.

@scottalanmiller said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:

@Rob-Dunn said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:

I think it's great that there is a discussion about the implications of backing/not backing up data, but I don't see why this conversation has to derail.

Any conversation that grows organically is not derailed. It's important aspects of the topic that were simply not envisioned as the ones that would be important to the conversation at the outset.

...and this is why I don't post here often. Every time I post anything or try to follow a topic here on ML, it devolves into an argument between usually you and someone else who doesn't agree with you. So now, this side convo is occurring which has very little to do with the original topic.

I don't mean offense to you or anyone else here, but I'm being totally honest here - this is exactly why I don't like interacting on ML.

Here we go:

Interesting, your response produced the proper link...let me find the other one and post that info here...

I think it's great that there is a discussion about the implications of backing/not backing up data, but I don't see why this conversation has to derail. I think a new topic would be sufficient for that.

Overall, this was just to notify people about what I'm seeing in the field and to give a "heads-up" to anyone. Now I'm getting spammed with stuff I don't really care about (well, I do, but that wasn't the direction I was expecting the topic to go).

So, I was following along with my Cerber ransomware post, and I get the email notifications for the topic (which is great), but the link provided for the topic looks like this:

http://topic/9083/cerber-virus-ransomware-making-the-rounds/10

Instead of:

http://mangolassi.it/topic/9083/cerber-virus-ransomware-making-the-rounds/10

Sorry if this is a known issue already, I just don't hop on here enough...

@Kelly said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:

@Rob-Dunn said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:

Another cool thing that we're going to be doing, but not as a result of this infection, is evaluating and maybe implementing Cylance in lieu of Trend on our systems.

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to say, but their engine seems revolutionary.

What makes you say that Rob?

Mostly that it's not conventional scanning, but instead it analyzes what the files do rather than just signatures or patterns. The closest comparison I can come up with is the way Android app permissions are broken down in the app store - - it can identify if a file's threat by the characteristics contained therein. Here's an analysis of the FreeConferenceCall.com installer:

Anomalies (1 of 20)

This PE is hiding something in its "relocations" area, and we're not sure what. The relocations area in a PE file is generally used for relocating particular symbols, but this particular object contains something else.

Collection (3 of 21)

This object imports functions that are used to list files. Malware uses this to look for sensitive data, or to find further points of attack.
This object imports functions that can capture and log keystrokes from the keyboard. Malware uses this to capture and save keystrokes to find sensitive information such as passwords.
This object imports functions that are used to gather information about the current operating system. Malware uses this to determine how to better tailor further attacks and to report information back to a controller.

DataLoss (0 of 12)

Deception (1 of 22)

This object seems to be looking for common protection systems. Malware does this to initiate an anti-protection action tailored to what is installed on the system.

Destruction (2 of 13)

This PE imports functions that can be used to delete Files or Directories. Malware uses this to break systems and cover its tracks.
This PE imports functions that can be used to spawn another process. Malware uses this to launch subsequent phases of an infection, typically downloaded from the Internet

---

The nice thing about it is we can run it alongside existing AV with no discernible hit to system performance; makes it that much easier to evaluate!

Another cool thing that we're going to be doing, but not as a result of this infection, is evaluating and maybe implementing Cylance in lieu of Trend on our systems.

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to say, but their engine seems revolutionary.