Re: MBAM 1.34 Released Today.

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by ~BD~, Feb 17, 2009.

  1. ~BD~

    ~BD~ Guest

    "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
    ~BD~, Feb 17, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ~BD~

    1PW Guest

    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?FEH9:DE=6o2@=]4@> [r4o7t]
    1PW, Feb 17, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ~BD~

    ~BD~ Guest

    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~, Feb 17, 2009
    #3
  4. ~BD~

    Max Wachtel Guest

    ~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, Feb 17, 2009
    #4
  5. ~BD~

    ~BD~ Guest

    "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~, Feb 17, 2009
    #5
  6. ~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
    John Mason Jr, Feb 17, 2009
    #6
  7. ~BD~

    Max Wachtel Guest

    ~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
    Max Wachtel, Feb 17, 2009
    #7
  8. ~BD~

    ~BD~ Guest

    "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~, Feb 17, 2009
    #8
  9. ~BD~

    nemo_outis Guest

    "~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,
    nemo_outis, Feb 18, 2009
    #9
  10. "~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.
    FromTheRafters, Feb 18, 2009
    #10
  11. ~BD~ wrote:
    > "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
    >
    >


    Then the individuals are trusting the advise they are given. They may
    not understand the risks but it is still their responsibility to make
    the decision.


    John
    John Mason Jr, Feb 18, 2009
    #11
  12. ~BD~

    Ari© Guest

    On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:51:32 -0500, John Mason Jr wrote:

    > ~BD~ wrote:
    >> "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
    >>

    >
    > Then the individuals are trusting the advise they are given. They may
    > not understand the risks but it is still their responsibility to make
    > the decision.
    >
    > John


    Watching this "debate" is like a room full of Christian women who are
    commenting about each others blue hair.
    --
    Meet Ari! http://tr.im/1fa3
    "To get concrete results, you have to be confrontational".
    Ari©, Feb 19, 2009
    #12
  13. ~BD~

    ~BD~ Guest

    "1PW" <> wrote in message
    news:gnea0q$80v$...
    > 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!



    Hello Pete :)

    Thank you for your email message, short and sweet though it was! I had hoped
    that you would have responded to my reply but ............... ah, well!

    >>
    >> Still naive? Probably!

    >
    > Paranoid?
    >


    A long time ago someone said to me " Just because you are paranoid, it
    doesn't mean that someone is *not* following you!" - Think on that!

    No - I am not paranoid. I am seeking only the truth and a better
    understanding of what bad guys do and why they do it. Oh yes ...... and
    *how*!


    >> 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.



    I have tried many anti-virus and anti-spyware programmes - free ones, trial
    ones and some I have purchased from a retail store on disk. I have also been
    to many dark and nasty places on the 'net and have no doubt at all that my
    PC has been attacked. I've experimented with 'cleaning' with the help of
    helpers on forums (some say fora!). I have experimented with Hijackthis
    without help. I have played with Combofix, ATF Cleaner, SmitfraudFix etc.

    I have also looked inside every file in System 32 using Notepad ('cause I
    could and had the time!)

    I have flattened both this and a previous machine many, many times and have
    also used Norton Ghost from time to time too.

    >
    >> 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?


    In essence, do I trust David H Lipman?

    In spite of all the bad things said about pcbutts1 - the *only* person ever
    to send me pornographic filth by email was Mr Lipman himself.


    >
    >> 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.



    My point is, Pete, that if all appears to operate normally, a user will not
    seek out rogue programmes which may be running on their machine. A machine
    could be compromised without their knowledge.


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

    >
    > You already know that answer.



    I *do* know - it can and does happen. The question remains, though
    ............. are some of those purporting to be good guys actually bad guys
    in cognito?


    >
    >> --
    >> 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?



    I really appreciate your help and advice, Pete. I read posts which you make
    to others experiencing difficulty and I have no concerns about anything
    *you* say. Although I still know little about computing matters I have a
    sixth sense when it comes to noticing how some who post react and/or do not
    tell the truth or who are inconsistent in their answers.

    My strong inclination is to use Linux on this PC (when I can master things
    better) ....... and buy myself an iMac after this years boating season!
    --
    Dave
    ~BD~, Feb 24, 2009
    #13
  14. ~BD~

    ~BD~ Guest

    Btw - it's not just me who thinks these things

    An integrated approach to endpoint protection

    The IT threat landscape has changed dramatically over the past few years. In
    the past, the

    majority of attacks were meant simply to make headline news. Today, attacks
    have become more

    sophisticated and stealthy, targeting specific organizations to reap
    financial gain. Professional

    hackers continuously develop new tactics to gain unauthorized, undetected,
    and ongoing access

    to an organization's systems and information. One gauge of the growing
    sophistication of attacks

    is the appearance of blended threats, which integrate multiple attack
    methods such as worms,

    Trojan horses, and zero-day threats.

    Antivirus, antispyware, and other signature-based protection measures, which
    are primarily

    reactive, may have been sufficient to protect an organization's vital
    resources a few years ago,

    but not so today. Organizations now need proactive endpoint security
    measures that can

    protect against zero-day attacks and even unknown threats. They need to take
    a structured

    approach to endpoint security, implementing a comprehensive solution that
    not only protects

    from threats on all levels, but also provides interoperability, seamless
    implementation, and

    centralized management.


    From: SymantecT Endpoint Protection
    A unified, proactive approach to

    endpoint security
    ~BD~, Feb 24, 2009
    #14
  15. ~BD~

    BoaterDave Guest

    On Feb 24, 7:39 pm, Wolf K <> wrote:
    > ~BD~ wrote:
    >
    > > A long time ago someone said to me " Just because you are paranoid, it
    > > doesn't mean that someone is *not* following you!" - Think on that!

    >
    > > No - I am not paranoid. I am seeking only the truth and a better
    > > understanding of what bad guys do and why they do it. Oh yes ...... and
    > > *how*!

    >
    > "The assumption that one is the target of random evil is not paranoia
    > but prudence."
    >
    > And you may quote me on that. ;-)
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > wolf k.


    I just noticed that I failed to thank you for your post, 'wolf k.'
    Please accept my apology.

    I did Google for your phrase but with no result. I must therefore
    conclude that you coined it yourself! ;)

    @1PW - I've got my iMac already - just couldn't wait, Pete!

    --
    Dave
    BoaterDave, Apr 1, 2009
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Gary G. Taylor

    NEW MICROSOFT SECURITY UPDATES, released today:

    Gary G. Taylor, Nov 12, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    508
    NewKillerStar
    Nov 12, 2003
  2. Gareth not NLL or anybody else.

    AVG Update Released Today (I Think)

    Gareth not NLL or anybody else., Nov 25, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    438
    Trent C
    Nov 25, 2003
  3. *  *  *   Y o u r  .  S h e p h e r d  .  A q u i

    Re: New tools for linux migration released today!

    * * * Y o u r . S h e p h e r d . A q u i, Jul 2, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    455
    Duane Arnold
    Jul 2, 2005
  4. The Intrinsically Flawed Mr. Hole

    "Forgotten Silver" released today at Netflix. Huh?

    The Intrinsically Flawed Mr. Hole, Oct 27, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    535
    The Intrinsically Flawed Mr. Hole
    Oct 27, 2004
  5. ~BD~

    Re: Re: MBAM 1.34 Released Today.

    ~BD~, Feb 12, 2009, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    544
Loading...

Share This Page