CanadaAotS Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Yah, if they have access to your new 100 GB harddrive... well lets say they'd be able to pretty much log everything you do for as long as you'd want to use your harddrive lol. by the time your hard drive was even half full, you'd probably have thrown it out and bought the new 300 GB one a while ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanJ Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Yah, if they have access to your new 100 GB harddrive... well lets say they'd be able to pretty much log everything you do for as long as you'd want to use your harddrive lol. I can't even start to work out how long it would fill or how much information they'd have. It would take years to fill but you'd have a load of informaiton - most people want the informaiton fast so this will never happen! Something people don't know: keyloggers tend to delete the files or send them after they reach a certain size too stop them being found so easily (Normally about the 500Kb mark), if you start making huge 40Mb files chances are they will be easilt found There are other reasons for this too, the larger the file the ,onger it takes to access, the harder it is to hide and the big one the harder to get the file when you want the informaiton out of it. Immagin trying to send a 40Mb file without some knowing, someone would soon notice their bandwidth drop as the file starts to send Cheers, Ryan Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vrus Posted November 11, 2005 Author Share Posted November 11, 2005 You can estimate it. Consider that one keystroke will take up precisely 1 byte' date=' and say that the average typing rate is about 35 wpm (quite fast). The average word in the English language is about 5.7 characters in length (can't remember where I got this one, but it's about reasonable). So if you were to type 35 wpm you'd be consuming about 200 characters per minute which translates to 200 bytes/min. So, if you had a 512mb flash drive onto which you stored the information, then you'd be able to log everything a person typed into a computer for the next 2.68 million seconds - roughly equivalent to 745 hours or 31 days. And that's if the person was typing continuously for that amount of time The answer is: quite a lot [/quote'] Nice calc. But these keyloggers also take screen shots; that would surely be more than 1 byte ? In that case wouldn't the memory be used up quicker ? Thanks for all the gyan on this topic ppl. This thing is a big privacy violation in my opinion, despite any good uses it has... You're right about the hardware thing CanadaAotS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanJ Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 Nice calc. But these keyloggers also take screen shots; that would surely be more than 1 byte ? In that case wouldn't the memory be used up quicker ? Thanks for all the gyan on this topic ppl. This thing is a big privacy violation in my opinion' date=' despite any good uses it has... You're right about the hardware thing CanadaAotS [/quote'] I'm thinking no-onw here has seen nor will see a screen shot type keylogger ebcause well they are crap and unreliable. They do use up more hard drive space but not much memory because they use the hard drive as virtual memory Cheers, Ryan Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 I've seen keyloggers which use screen shot too but have never extensively worked with them because I couldn't get a decent one for free and there was little need to get screen shots... I wanted a keylogger, not a screenlogger! Why are they "crap and unreliable"? Is it just because they are handling bigger files (image files) or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanJ Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Why are they "crap and unreliable"? Is it just because they are handling bigger files (image files) or what? There is that yes, the actual quality of the image depends on the system, the memory etc. so you don't always get what your looking for. Then, if you have a program that monitors unusual memory usage then it will find tha this program is using an amazing ammount of memory when transfering the print screen to a file and thus its more likley to be found! There are a few more reasons but they probably won't be of interest to anyone here so I'll not waste server space by posting them Cheers, Ryan Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now