«

"Dustin Cook" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9BB498BACBEC3HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250.. .
>>
>> How would a Windows user know that installing MBAM really is a good
>> thing to do? Whilst the programme may well remove all manner of
>> 'nasties' from the machine of a user, how can that user be certain
>> that it hasn't actually *installed* some badware too?

> Just one question.... Are you high?

> --
> Regards,
> Dustin Cook
> Malware Researcher
> MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
>


No, Sir!

Still naive? Probably!

Correct me where I am wrong, please.

My understanding is that 'malware' can be, and is, installed surrepticiously
upon millions of computers around the world. Often, a user is unaware that a
machine has been compromised.

There are many 'help' forums available on the Internet. It seems only
logical that some such operations may take advantage of inexperienced folk
who do, without a second thought, download all manner of executable
programmes onto their machines (as instructed by a 'helper').

Once a machine has been declared 'clean' - how can the average user possibly
know that something 'nastie' has not been *added* to their machine if it
appears to operate 'normally'?

This couldn't/wouldn't happen? Are you sure?

--
Dave

On 02/17/2009 12:47 AM, ~BD~ sent:
> "Dustin Cook" <> wrote in message
> news:Xns9BB498BACBEC3HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250.. .
>>> How would a Windows user know that installing MBAM really is a good
>>> thing to do? Whilst the programme may well remove all manner of
>>> 'nasties' from the machine of a user, how can that user be certain
>>> that it hasn't actually *installed* some badware too?
>
>> Just one question.... Are you high?
>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Dustin Cook
>> Malware Researcher
>> MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
>>
>
>
> No, Sir!
>
> Still naive? Probably!

Paranoid?

> Correct me where I am wrong, please.
>
> My understanding is that 'malware' can be, and is, installed surreptitiously
> upon millions of computers around the world. Often, a user is unaware that a
> machine has been compromised.

Almost a bit like Conficker, huh? Reads like good, safe computing and
realtime antimalware applications are needed Dave.

> There are many 'help' forums available on the Internet. It seems only
> logical that some such operations may take advantage of inexperienced folk
> who do, without a second thought, download all manner of executable
> programmes onto their machines (as instructed by a 'helper').

Reputation leads to trust. If David Lipman suggested an MBAM scan for a
particular infection you described in /your/ computer, what would you do?

> Once a machine has been declared 'clean' - how can the average user possibly
> know that something 'nastie' has not been *added* to their machine if it
> appears to operate 'normally'?

Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS), realtime antimalware scans, or
flatten, rebuild, restore from backups.

> This couldn't/wouldn't happen? Are you sure?

You already know that answer.

> --
> Dave

Trust must start somewhere and some paranoia is useful.

MBAM has our trust through its reputation Dave. A bogus MBAM /could/ be
downloaded from a disreputable source of course. But by only
downloading from MalwareBytes.com, it comes as close to 100% trust as is
possible.

Some software authors will provide md5/sha1 hashes or PGP/GPG signed
files that accompany the download and this is welcomed by some, but some
reluctance on the part of authors and users is making that level of
verification difficult. How then do we implement: trust but verify?

If one is paralyzed by so much suspicion and doubt, then it's probably
best to leave your computer turned off or only surf the net and do email
through LiveCDs.

What will you do now Dave?

Pete
--
1PW @?6A62?FEH9E=6o2@=]4@> [r4o7t]

Before I answer you in this thread, Pete, I'd like you to contact me again
by email ........... and this time grant permission for me to respond to
you in like manner. I respected your wishes previously - if you really are
one of the good guys, please respond to this request. Thank you.
--
Dave

~BD~, after much thought, came up with this jewel:
> Before I answer you in this thread, Pete, I'd like you to contact me again
> by email ........... and this time grant permission for me to respond to
> you in like manner. I respected your wishes previously - if you really are
> one of the good guys, please respond to this request. Thank you.
>
You still haven't figured out who the good guys are yet?
I'm not sure if there is any hope for you......
--
Virus Removal http://max.shplink.com/removal.html
Keep Clean http://max.shplink.com/keepingclean.html
Change nomail.afraid.org to gmail.com to reply by email.
nomail.afraid.org is specifically setup for use in USENET

"Max Wachtel" <> wrote in message
news:gnejt7$7hl$...
> ~BD~, after much thought, came up with this jewel:
>> Before I answer you in this thread, Pete, I'd like you to contact me
>> again by email ........... and this time grant permission for me to
>> respond to you in like manner. I respected your wishes previously - if
>> you really are one of the good guys, please respond to this request.
>> Thank you.
>>
> You still haven't figured out who the good guys are yet?
> I'm not sure if there is any hope for you......
> --
> Virus Removal http://max.shplink.com/removal.html
> Keep Clean http://max.shplink.com/keepingclean.html
> Change nomail.afraid.org to gmail.com to reply by email.
> nomail.afraid.org is specifically setup for use in USENET

When I first came to the groups I believed *everyone*. In the case of the
Microsoft groups I naively thought everything was being moderated and
checked by Microsoft itself. Doh!

I'd been led to believe that any 'bad' posts would be scorned by 'the good
guys' - just like folk gang-up on The Real Truth MVP (PCButts1).

One of those supposedly 'good guys' was/is Robear Dyer (PA Bear) but he has
lied - he's told everyone 'here' who cares to read that I (~BD~, BoaterDave,
Beady, Imbeady2 and John_D) have been banned/sacked by a number of ISP's.
That is one simple fact which I KNOW, categorically, is a lie. It simply
isn't true. Or maybe it wasn't really him posting at all - it could have
been an imposter, couldn't it?
--
Dave

~BD~ wrote:
> "Dustin Cook" <> wrote in message
> news:Xns9BB498BACBEC3HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250.. .
>>> How would a Windows user know that installing MBAM really is a good
>>> thing to do? Whilst the programme may well remove all manner of
>>> 'nasties' from the machine of a user, how can that user be certain
>>> that it hasn't actually *installed* some badware too?
>
>> Just one question.... Are you high?
>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Dustin Cook
>> Malware Researcher
>> MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
>>
>
>
> No, Sir!
>
> Still naive? Probably!
>
> Correct me where I am wrong, please.
>
> My understanding is that 'malware' can be, and is, installed surrepticiously
> upon millions of computers around the world. Often, a user is unaware that a
> machine has been compromised.
>
> There are many 'help' forums available on the Internet. It seems only
> logical that some such operations may take advantage of inexperienced folk
> who do, without a second thought, download all manner of executable
> programmes onto their machines (as instructed by a 'helper').
>
> Once a machine has been declared 'clean' - how can the average user possibly
> know that something 'nastie' has not been *added* to their machine if it
> appears to operate 'normally'?
>
> This couldn't/wouldn't happen? Are you sure?
>
> --
> Dave
>
>


You should only download & run software on your computer that you trust,
you need to decide what level of verification you require, and make
appropriate decisions.


John

~BD~, after much thought, came up with this jewel:
> "Max Wachtel" <> wrote in message
> news:gnejt7$7hl$...
>> ~BD~, after much thought, came up with this jewel:
>>> Before I answer you in this thread, Pete, I'd like you to contact me
>>> again by email ........... and this time grant permission for me to
>>> respond to you in like manner. I respected your wishes previously - if
>>> you really are one of the good guys, please respond to this request.
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>> You still haven't figured out who the good guys are yet?
>> I'm not sure if there is any hope for you......
>> --
>> Virus Removal http://max.shplink.com/removal.html
>> Keep Clean http://max.shplink.com/keepingclean.html
>> Change nomail.afraid.org to gmail.com to reply by email.
>> nomail.afraid.org is specifically setup for use in USENET
>
> When I first came to the groups I believed *everyone*. In the case of the
> Microsoft groups I naively thought everything was being moderated and
> checked by Microsoft itself. Doh!
>
> I'd been led to believe that any 'bad' posts would be scorned by 'the good
> guys' - just like folk gang-up on The Real Truth MVP (PCButts1).
>
> One of those supposedly 'good guys' was/is Robear Dyer (PA Bear) but he has
> lied - he's told everyone 'here' who cares to read that I (~BD~, BoaterDave,
> Beady, Imbeady2 and John_D) have been banned/sacked by a number of ISP's.
> That is one simple fact which I KNOW, categorically, is a lie. It simply
> isn't true. Or maybe it wasn't really him posting at all - it could have
> been an imposter, couldn't it?

I can't believe your still ranting about bear-give it a rest (makes you
look like a troll).
--
Virus Removal http://max.shplink.com/removal.html
Keep Clean http://max.shplink.com/keepingclean.html
Change nomail.afraid.org to gmail.com to reply by email.
nomail.afraid.org is specifically setup for use in USENET

"John Mason Jr" <> wrote in message
news:gnf06j$327$...
> ~BD~ wrote:
>> "Dustin Cook" <> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9BB498BACBEC3HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250.. .
>>>> How would a Windows user know that installing MBAM really is a good
>>>> thing to do? Whilst the programme may well remove all manner of
>>>> 'nasties' from the machine of a user, how can that user be certain
>>>> that it hasn't actually *installed* some badware too?
>>
>>> Just one question.... Are you high?
>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Dustin Cook
>>> Malware Researcher
>>> MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, Sir!
>>
>> Still naive? Probably!
>>
>> Correct me where I am wrong, please.
>>
>> My understanding is that 'malware' can be, and is, installed
>> surrepticiously upon millions of computers around the world. Often, a
>> user is unaware that a machine has been compromised.
>>
>> There are many 'help' forums available on the Internet. It seems only
>> logical that some such operations may take advantage of inexperienced
>> folk who do, without a second thought, download all manner of executable
>> programmes onto their machines (as instructed by a 'helper').
>>
>> Once a machine has been declared 'clean' - how can the average user
>> possibly know that something 'nastie' has not been *added* to their
>> machine if it appears to operate 'normally'?
>>
>> This couldn't/wouldn't happen? Are you sure?
>>
>> --
>> Dave
>
>
> You should only download & run software on your computer that you trust,
> you need to decide what level of verification you require, and make
> appropriate decisions.
>
>
> John


Thank you for taking the trouble to respond, John. I *do* understand!

I do not doubt the credibility of MBAM even though the facility came from
nowhere in a very short time - what is it now? Three years perhaps? In a
similar timescale, SuperAntiSpyware came from nowhere too. I still remember
that expression "There's no such thing as a free lunch".

My point was - still is - that when people experience computer problems, and
end up in newsgroups seeking help, they are directed to unknown places (for
them). They are then invited to download all manner of 'cleaning' material -
about which they have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever - and they put
blind trust in their 'helper'.

Such activity, IMO, is wide open to abuse.
--
Dave

"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in
news:gnfi6h$1k1$:

>
> "John Mason Jr" <> wrote in message
> news:gnf06j$327$...
>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>> "Dustin Cook" <> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9BB498BACBEC3HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250.. .
>>>>> How would a Windows user know that installing MBAM really is a
>>>>> good thing to do? Whilst the programme may well remove all manner
>>>>> of 'nasties' from the machine of a user, how can that user be
>>>>> certain that it hasn't actually *installed* some badware too?
>>>
>>>> Just one question.... Are you high?
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dustin Cook
>>>> Malware Researcher
>>>> MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, Sir!
>>>
>>> Still naive? Probably!
>>>
>>> Correct me where I am wrong, please.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that 'malware' can be, and is, installed
>>> surrepticiously upon millions of computers around the world. Often,
>>> a user is unaware that a machine has been compromised.
>>>
>>> There are many 'help' forums available on the Internet. It seems
>>> only logical that some such operations may take advantage of
>>> inexperienced folk who do, without a second thought, download all
>>> manner of executable programmes onto their machines (as instructed
>>> by a 'helper').
>>>
>>> Once a machine has been declared 'clean' - how can the average user
>>> possibly know that something 'nastie' has not been *added* to their
>>> machine if it appears to operate 'normally'?
>>>
>>> This couldn't/wouldn't happen? Are you sure?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave
>>
>>
>> You should only download & run software on your computer that you
>> trust, you need to decide what level of verification you require, and
>> make appropriate decisions.

> My point was - still is - that when people experience computer
> problems, and end up in newsgroups seeking help, they are directed to
> unknown places (for them). They are then invited to download all
> manner of 'cleaning' material - about which they have absolutely no
> knowledge whatsoever - and they put blind trust in their 'helper'.
>
> Such activity, IMO, is wide open to abuse.


When I drive down the street I put blind trust in my fellow motorists to
stay in their lane and not ram me head-on. Such activity, IMO, is wide
open to abuse.

Life is a risky business - no one gets out alive. Get used to it.

Regards,

"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in message
news:gnfi6h$1k1$...

> My point was - still is - that when people experience
> computer problems, and end up in newsgroups seeking help,
> they are directed to unknown places (for them). They are
> then invited to download all manner of 'cleaning'
> material - about which they have absolutely no knowledge
> whatsoever - and they put blind trust in their 'helper'.
>
> Such activity, IMO, is wide open to abuse.

It is called "human nature" and you are right - it is easily
exploited. Some refer to it as "social engineering" when
software is crafted to exploit human nature. It is by far
the most prevalent vulnerability in computer security. You
spin the wheel and you take your chances. Usenet is the
"wild west" of the internet.

You just have to make your own decision about trust, and
hopefully it is an informed decision.