Klez virus

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Pablo, Jun 24, 2004.

  1. Pablo

    Lloyd Jones Guest

    Shut up you idiot!

    LJ
     
    Lloyd Jones, Jun 26, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Pablo

    Lloyd Jones Guest

    Unknown, this is the last time I'm going to reply to an idiot like you.

    Take some "Good Advice" go out put a bag over your head and hope to get laid
    for once in your sad little life. :)

    LJ
     
    Lloyd Jones, Jun 26, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Pablo

    Unknown Guest

    Such a SHINING WIT (apologies for the Spoonerism). Why not Friar Tuck (again
    apologies for the Spoonerism) and get over yourself, twit?
     
    Unknown, Jun 27, 2004
    #23
  4. Pablo

    Unknown Guest

    Considering you are the fool who keeps constantly proving you dont have a
    clue, not only is that good news you wont reply to me again but it is good
    news you call me an idiot. Coming from a total moron like you it adds up to
    a compliment. Eg, 2 negatives make a positive!
    Try this - load your brain before shooting off your mouth, you "wannabe know
    nothing".
     
    Unknown, Jun 27, 2004
    #24
  5. Pablo

    Thor Guest

    exactly the point you seem to be missing. Stinger is no better in that
    regard since it only looks for a fraction of the possible viruses out there.
    Gee, it detects and removes 41 out of the 100,000+ possible viruses out
    there. Yeah, that's reassuring. You miss the point entirely. You DON'T use
    stinger or the Symantec tools for *detection*. Only for *removal* of *known*
    infections. You need to run a full virus scan with a full-coverage scanner
    to establish what infections are present, not a small-scale removal tool
    like Stinger. If the full scan indicates a single infection that stinger or
    the symantec tools handle, then either are fine for removal purposes, if the
    full coverage scanner cannot remove them (which is unlikely anyway). If you
    have multiple infections and you know stinger handles more than one of the
    infections you have, then of course it is more efficient to use Stinger
    rather than Symantec's tools. If, however, you only have a single infection
    (as established by a full-coverage scanner) then it is no better or worse to
    use Symantec's tools versus Stinger. The point is that you do a scan with a
    full-coverage scanner first, and if it can't remove the infection for some
    reason, then you try something else, but what is sensible to use, depends on
    what infection, or infections you have. Symantec's tools are far from
    useless. Also consider that there are far more viruses covered by Symantec's
    roster of removal tools than Stinger handles in it's list of 41. It is very
    possible to have multiple infections where some are covered by Stinger and
    others aren't, in which case a combination of stinger and symantec's tools
    may be effective, which again rebutts your assertion that symantec's tools
    are somehow a "waste of time". Stinger is no panacea, and it's not a good
    detection tool. That's the first thing you need to get through your head.
    Whether it is "better" as a removal tool depends entirely on what infections
    you have.
     
    Thor, Jun 27, 2004
    #25
  6. Pablo

    Lloyd Jones Guest

    Such a SHINING WIT (apologies for the Spoonerism). Why not Friar Tuck
    (again
    Don't talk to me.

    LJ
     
    Lloyd Jones, Jun 27, 2004
    #26
  7. Pablo

    Lloyd Jones Guest

    Try this - load your brain before shooting off your mouth, you "wannabe
    know
    I'm guessing you don't have any friends in the real world.

    LJ
     
    Lloyd Jones, Jun 27, 2004
    #27
  8. Pablo

    Unknown Guest

    I didn't. I typed to you. Dickhead.
     
    Unknown, Jun 27, 2004
    #28
  9. Pablo

    Unknown Guest

    The point you obviously are missing I have said more than once. Symantec
    tools do one possible infection at a time and run one program at a time.
    Stinger does 41 in one pass. So, you have a choice. Run one program once to
    cover 41 possibilities or run 41, sequentially and not concurrently,
    Symantec tools. If you are going to say Stinger is no better, please tell me
    how ONE Symantec removal tool, that does only one possibility, is better
    than one tool that looks for 41? Stinger is obviously a LOT better but
    again, obviously, it isnt meant to be an entire AV program. The MAJOR thing
    that Stinger has over Symantec tools apart from what I said is that it will
    continue on down deep nested pathways to check dirs. Symantec tools wont go
    the same distance. They DO go down deep nested dirs and fail after a certain
    length as does Nortons AV. This was reported to them over a year ago and it
    still is to be fixed. The result being that if you get infected with a
    Trojan that opens a back door and it is deep nested beyond Nortons'
    capabilities, Nortons will continue to report your machine virus free when
    it isnt.
    .....and gee, Symantec tools repot ONE out of the approximate 95000! 41 or 1?
    Which number is higher to you? You are getting off the topic!
    Nope. You miss it entirely. It was never about the fact that Stinger doesnt
    know all viruses/whatevers. No Symantec tool does either so by you saying
    that, you are going in a direction that wasnt even mentioned. The topic here
    was "which is better? One that removes up to 41 and variants in one pass or
    having to run 41 different progs, one at a time and wait till they are
    finished?".
    *known*

    Oh blow me down with a feather! NO virus or torjan/whatever can be REMOVED
    without being DETECTED! Sheesh! Dont you know THAT!?
    That had nothing to do with the point I raised. If you cant stick to the
    point, why are you arguing? I never SAID Stinger was for everything!
     
    Unknown, Jun 27, 2004
    #29
  10. Pablo

    Unknown Guest

    I'm guessing you want to be a "computer guy" one day, when you have learned
    enough, if that is even possible for you.
     
    Unknown, Jun 27, 2004
    #30
  11. Pablo

    Thor Guest

    The point you obviously are missing I have said more than once. Symantec
    Looking for 41 possible viruses is a moot point if you have already (and
    properly) established what infections are present by first using a
    full-coverage scanner, which would have already checked for those 41
    viruses. If a virus is detected, and you want to use a removal tool, then
    the symantec tools are often no better or worse to use than Stinger.
    ****Stinger only holds an advantage when more than one virus that it happens
    to cover, is known to be present. Again, this information would be
    established BEFORE you even run stinger or any other mere removal tool, by
    using a full-coverage scanner.*****

    What about this do you fail to understand?
    Never heard of any such reports. Kindly post a link to some something that
    credibly substantiates your claim, and I would reconsider my position.
    Otherwise it sounds like you are blowing a bunch of hot air here. If you had
    come forth with such a claim firsthand, and submitted some credible proof to
    back it up, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. I would be in
    full agreement with you as I would consider that a far more serious issue
    than this inane "Stinger is better because it removes 41 virsuses in one
    pass" business. The fact that you are only now trotting this out to support
    a far less meaningful argument against Symantec's tools, doesn't make your
    claim sound very credible.
    The point that escapes you is the reality that Stinger holds a superior edge
    and is more efficient to use in *certain* circumstances, not *all* removal
    situations. At best it would be *equal* to Symantec's tools in those
    situations. Otherwise, you would be wasting your time checking for 40 other
    virsuses that you have already established aren't on the system by way of a
    full-coverage scanner.
    No, you said it was always better than Symantec's tools. I quite effectively
    poked a big fat hole in that argument by demonstrating a situation where it
    is not always "better". Then, there are also quite a few viruses that
    Symantec has removal tools for, that Stinger does not even cover, obviously
    negating stinger's usefulness in those cases, versus Symantec's tools. You
    remind me of the character on "this is Spinal Tap" who argued the
    superiority of the amplifier that has controls that go to "Eleven".

    Let me paint a simple scenario.

    1. I scan my system with a full coverage scanner.
    2. it states that the system is infected with the "Sasser" worm, and nothing
    else.
    3. Which removal tool would be better to remove a single virus? Stinger or
    Symantec's sasser removal tool?
    4. Neither would be better than the other. They both remove sasser.
    5. Stinger's ability to remove 40 other viruses in one pass is nice, but a
    wasted feature in this case, because it was already established that those
    40 other viruses aren't present.

    get it?


    And lastly, you could even say that in that particular situation, Symantec's
    sasser removal tool holds a small advantage in that it is a smaller download
    than Stinger. ~800k for Stinger versus about ~150k for the average symantec
    tool.
     
    Thor, Jun 27, 2004
    #31
  12. Pablo

    Lloyd Jones Guest

    Thor I don't know who this new guy "Unknown or shall we say Unwanted" thinks
    he is. He comes in this NG shooting his mouth off. He's just a asshole.

    LJ
     
    Lloyd Jones, Jun 27, 2004
    #32
  13. Pablo

    Lloyd Jones Guest

    What made you come in this computer NG.

    Hmmmm let me think, everyone hated you in the last one.

    LJ
     
    Lloyd Jones, Jun 27, 2004
    #33
  14. Pablo

    Unknown Guest

    OK then looking for ONE virus is 41 TIMES more of a moot point.
    Wrong! Some scanners still APPEAR to be working fine when infections are
    present. Some infections DONT disable your AV prog but DO stop it updating.
    The whole point was "If you think you have ONE virus/whatever, you just MAY
    have it but if you have one, you are likely to have MORE than one. So, check
    out others as well". Now as it is more likely that you have one of those 41
    than any older ones, you are more likely to disinfect your machine so you
    can do whatever it takes to get your AV prog going again. With one tool, you
    arent, where that tool only checks for one. So, if you want to check for
    other possibilities before reinstalling or updating your AV prog, you need
    either run Stinger once or 41 different Symantec tools, one at a time.
    Seeing the time it takes to run ONE tool depends on the machine it is run
    on, if we average this out to 1 hour to run Stinger or any other removal
    tool, then your Symantec check would be complete well in excess of 41 hours
    later. Stinger, in the meantime, would be complete 1 hour later.
    Not true. If you get a KLEZ tool from Symantec, that is all it does. If you
    get Stinger, it looks for 41 different tools. Thus, Symantec tools are
    DEFINITELY nowhere NEAR as good as Stinger.
    .....which is more often the case than not!
    No, it wouldnt. You cant possibly tell me you can detect 41 viruses and/or
    know they are there before using ANY removal tool. If so why are you using
    ANY removal tool?
    Then you cant know enough about security problems. It may pay you to start
    being a part of security groups.

    As to "post a link", I never said at any time that I thought you were an
    idiot. Find them yourself. All you have to do is look for them!
     
    Unknown, Jun 27, 2004
    #34
  15. Pablo

    Unknown Guest

    Sure - coming from a proven "computer guy wannabe" who knows nothing, anyone
    who knows what is going on HAS to be an arsehole. You wouldn't REALLY want
    to look like you know nothing so the one proving you are wrong HAS to have
    something wrong with him, hey?

    Why don't you just LEARN about computing subjects before attempting to teach
    anything? See, what you are saying is utter bullshit in some cases and you
    are leading people down the garden path. Anyone who listens to you HAS to be
    aware you are a twit and though there is a chance something you say can be
    correct because ANY parrot can repeat a phrase if it hears it often enough,
    chances are greater that you are shaping words with your anus again!
     
    Unknown, Jun 27, 2004
    #35
  16. Pablo

    Lloyd Jones Guest

    "Unwanted"

    Been here before you and we will be around long after your gone.

    Enjoy your 15 minuets of hate. :)

    LJ
     
    Lloyd Jones, Jun 27, 2004
    #36
  17. Pablo

    Thor Guest

    Unknown: But it goes to ELEVEN!




    LOL!
     
    Thor, Jun 28, 2004
    #37
  18. Pablo

    Unknown Guest

    Unlikely, unless you learn something worthwhile.

    Enjoy trying to make up answers from no knowledge again.
     
    Unknown, Jul 1, 2004
    #38
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.