Stealth vs. Clean
-
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:33 am
- Location: Philadelphia area
M^(2), interesting point...what exactly do we mean by stealth? It is true that traces of activity are easy to find while the apps are being run and Sysinternals tools will help to illuminate that activity and I believe that we'd all agree that these apps don't attempt to disguise that activity. The effort to make an application stealthy is aimed at not impacting a machine's performance, complexity, or stability with residue of various types after it has been run. Other than MRUs which are benign and quickly roll off last-in-lists, are there any other traces which bears mentioning--anything which might impact a machine's future no matter how insignificant? I guess, once we succintly define the concept, then choosing the appropriate term won't be as difficult. Generally speaking, once this site deems an application to be stealthy, I feel pretty secure in using that application from my jumpdrive on someone else's machine, knowing that I won't be screwing up their machine in any way--loading their registry, etc.
We're talking about the same thing. MRUs are the only allowed change on the host computer after the application quit. I'm 95% sure that it's what "stealth" in the database means as well.fpelletier wrote:M^(2), interesting point...what exactly do we mean by stealth? It is true that traces of activity are easy to find while the apps are being run and Sysinternals tools will help to illuminate that activity and I believe that we'd all agree that these apps don't attempt to disguise that activity. The effort to make an application stealthy is aimed at not impacting a machine's performance, complexity, or stability with residue of various types after it has been run. Other than MRUs which are benign and quickly roll off last-in-lists, are there any other traces which bears mentioning--anything which might impact a machine's future no matter how insignificant? I guess, once we succintly define the concept, then choosing the appropriate term won't be as difficult. Generally speaking, once this site deems an application to be stealthy, I feel pretty secure in using that application from my jumpdrive on someone else's machine, knowing that I won't be screwing up their machine in any way--loading their registry, etc.
Actually, myself I'd accept small files in temp as they get deleted at hdd cleanup, but to prevent confusion, I use the most common definition.
This has been an interesting post so far but I want to turn it all on its head now.
Why are we discussing what to call natively portable apps?
To me it would make a lot more sense to call these apps portable and the "non-stealth" as it is now impolite/unclean/dirty/ or even trace-leaving just to be sure people know what we mean.
Logically it makes sense.
My personal preference is to keep calling apps stealthy, the way I see it if some smart arsed kid thinks he can use stealthy apps to break the rules on somebody elses machine I'd be glad to let him think it can work.
Let them get into shit for it.
If somebody wants a polite app to use on strange machines great get a
stealth marked one, if somebody wants to be sneaky, tough!
Why are we discussing what to call natively portable apps?
To me it would make a lot more sense to call these apps portable and the "non-stealth" as it is now impolite/unclean/dirty/ or even trace-leaving just to be sure people know what we mean.
Logically it makes sense.
My personal preference is to keep calling apps stealthy, the way I see it if some smart arsed kid thinks he can use stealthy apps to break the rules on somebody elses machine I'd be glad to let him think it can work.
Let them get into shit for it.
If somebody wants a polite app to use on strange machines great get a
stealth marked one, if somebody wants to be sneaky, tough!
It won't work. You won't force the creators of portable apps to add info that their software is lower quality. "Is it portable? It is."Local wrote:This has been an interesting post so far but I want to turn it all on its head now.
Why are we discussing what to call natively portable apps?
To me it would make a lot more sense to call these apps portable and the "non-stealth" as it is now impolite/unclean/dirty/ or even trace-leaving just to be sure people know what we mean.
Logically it makes sense.
Also it's more polite to honor features than make excuses for lack of them.
I get your point, but well...i don't like it. Even though I feel that there's something wrong when one feels a strong need to be sneaky, I prefer honest information.Local wrote:My personal preference is to keep calling apps stealthy, the way I see it if some smart arsed kid thinks he can use stealthy apps to break the rules on somebody elses machine I'd be glad to let him think it can work.
Let them get into shit for it.
If somebody wants a polite app to use on strange machines great get a
stealth marked one, if somebody wants to be sneaky, tough!
Damn, that's that emotion thing again.It won't work. You won't force the creators of portable apps to add info that their software is lower quality. "Is it portable? It is."
As I said logically it made sense, I never thought about hurting anyones feelings
Are we talking about on this forum though or creating a universal term
In most of society I find that nobody uses terms for the intended uses no matter how correct the term is.
I can't count the amount of different names and "scenes" I've been pigeon-holed into because people just heard a new word.
Most probably the only way to get people to understand every time is to use an entire sentence. Not that I'm trying to put anyone off here.
I agree, kind of.Even though I feel that there's something wrong when one feels a strong need to be sneaky, I prefer honest information.
When I first came on this forum I didn't have a clue what stealth meant nor most other PC related words.
UPX'd???? what on earth was that?
Ripping??? I thought that meant destroying
burning?? I'm not gonna go there
Even things like Mobo's and Vista didn't make sense at first and that was straight out of college.
Although I guess Vista still doesn't make any sense.
What I mean is, just about any word will do if enough people are using it in the right context and on this forum everybody is using stealth.
There will always be somebody there to explain it to a newbie, all they have to do is ask.
-
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 6:03 am
As there is no genuine word which describes every aspect of a portable app's "stealthiness", we will have to (either or):
- create one and define it so that it fits our needs the best
- chose one of the proposals (stealth, clean, polite or whatever) BUT it will still be necessary to define it's meaning a way, so that it covers all meanings of "stealthiness" when used in the context of portable apps
- find another proposal, which covers most aspects and is somehow "not that misleading" (whatever that may mean), but the need for a special definiton for the usage in our context will still be persistent
What nobody should expect from a suggested terminus technicus is:
- That it fully covers all the needed aspects without adaptive modifications of it's meaning for our purpose.
- That, whatever term we finally chose, EVERYBODY (the portable apps freak as well as the one who turns on his computer the first time in his life) will understand what we mean by stealth/clean/polite/whatever WITHOUT knowing how we define our special term.
BTW most of the technical terms which are taken from the standard language will only become a technical term because their meaning is particularly defined for a special field of knowledge.
Considering all this, I don't think it makes much of a difference when we call a "stealth" portable app "stealth" or "clean" because not every aspect of this special feature is covered by either of those word genuinly. Their proper application is much more a result of a special definition. That is the reason why many of us prefer "stealth", because they know what that means in our context expecially that it is not the same thing as "complete-non-traceability".
- create one and define it so that it fits our needs the best
- chose one of the proposals (stealth, clean, polite or whatever) BUT it will still be necessary to define it's meaning a way, so that it covers all meanings of "stealthiness" when used in the context of portable apps
- find another proposal, which covers most aspects and is somehow "not that misleading" (whatever that may mean), but the need for a special definiton for the usage in our context will still be persistent
What nobody should expect from a suggested terminus technicus is:
- That it fully covers all the needed aspects without adaptive modifications of it's meaning for our purpose.
- That, whatever term we finally chose, EVERYBODY (the portable apps freak as well as the one who turns on his computer the first time in his life) will understand what we mean by stealth/clean/polite/whatever WITHOUT knowing how we define our special term.
BTW most of the technical terms which are taken from the standard language will only become a technical term because their meaning is particularly defined for a special field of knowledge.
Considering all this, I don't think it makes much of a difference when we call a "stealth" portable app "stealth" or "clean" because not every aspect of this special feature is covered by either of those word genuinly. Their proper application is much more a result of a special definition. That is the reason why many of us prefer "stealth", because they know what that means in our context expecially that it is not the same thing as "complete-non-traceability".
Well, the fine points made by local, fpelletier, and GeddichNixan have won me over (except that I definitely disagree with local's suggestion that only "stealth" apps be considered portable).
"Stealth" is good enough for me, and it's been used here on TPFC for so long now that it might as well be kept.
Though "stealth" means "secret" or "surreptitious", it doesn't mean "traceless" or "undetectable", and those meanings probably won't be inferred by most people.
"Stealth" is good enough for me, and it's been used here on TPFC for so long now that it might as well be kept.
Though "stealth" means "secret" or "surreptitious", it doesn't mean "traceless" or "undetectable", and those meanings probably won't be inferred by most people.
-
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 6:03 am
I thought "sandboxed" implies a certain security aspect in addition to a mere "non-writing-outside-the-app-folder" behavior. I checked this word in Wikipedia with the following result:
SANDBOX
[...]
In computing:
Sandbox (computer security), a virtual container in which untrusted programs can be safely run
Sandbox (software development), an online environment in which code or content changes can be tested without affecting the original system
I guess it was the second definition which ashghost referred to. My problem with "sandboxed" is that due to it's first, security related meaning it could be very misleading, but as I wrote in my previous posting, it is a question of definition in the end.
The expression "self enclosed" IMO seems to be worth to be taken into consideration.
BTW, "stealth" would be good enough for me too as we have been using it at TPFC for such a long time. Nevertheless we will have to give it a clear definiton with special respect to it's limitations (i.e. no automatic non-traceability).
SANDBOX
[...]
In computing:
Sandbox (computer security), a virtual container in which untrusted programs can be safely run
Sandbox (software development), an online environment in which code or content changes can be tested without affecting the original system
I guess it was the second definition which ashghost referred to. My problem with "sandboxed" is that due to it's first, security related meaning it could be very misleading, but as I wrote in my previous posting, it is a question of definition in the end.
The expression "self enclosed" IMO seems to be worth to be taken into consideration.
BTW, "stealth" would be good enough for me too as we have been using it at TPFC for such a long time. Nevertheless we will have to give it a clear definiton with special respect to it's limitations (i.e. no automatic non-traceability).
Last edited by GeddichNixan on Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 6:03 am
How about Neat
Neat = Precisely or deftly executed
or
Antiseptic
Elegant
Harmonious
or my favorite Axenic
In biology, axenic describes a culture of a particular organism that is entirely free of all other "contaminating" organisms. The earliest axenic cultures were of bacteria or unicellular eukaryotes, but axenic cultures of many multicellular organisms are also possible.
Neat = Precisely or deftly executed
or
Antiseptic
Elegant
Harmonious
or my favorite Axenic
In biology, axenic describes a culture of a particular organism that is entirely free of all other "contaminating" organisms. The earliest axenic cultures were of bacteria or unicellular eukaryotes, but axenic cultures of many multicellular organisms are also possible.