Who checks the malware fighters?

[~BD~]

BD said

> Maybe someone like David Kaye has the experience to determine if a
> machine is actually clean after installing and running MBAM. Someone,
> surely, has carried out an independent check to give such a widely
> used
> facility a clean bill of health. Whilst MBAM is obviously highly
> effective at removing 'malware' why is it considered impossible for
> the
> downloaded software to leave its own gremlin within the cleaned
> machine?

Dustin Cook said

Malwarebytes has thousands of happy users, gets praise every single day
on many forums; continues to be one of the top rated downloads for
antimalware at cnet.com. What you claim just doesn't jive with reality.
Your consiperacy theory BS aside, that is.

******

My question remains unanswered.

I'm *not* claiming anything - just seeking the truth!

--
Dave

[Max Wachtel]

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 05:40:12 -0300, ~BD~ <BoaterDave.NoSpam@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

>> why is it considered impossible for the
>> downloaded software to leave its own gremlin within the cleaned
>> machine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gremlin
--
This post was created using Opera@USB: http://www.opera-usb.com
Virus Removal Instructions
http://sites.google.com/site/keepingwindowsclean/home
Max's Favorite Freeware
http://sites.google.com/site/keeping...clean/freeware

[Mike Easter]

~BD~ wrote:
> My question remains unanswered.
>
> I'm *not* claiming anything - just seeking the truth!
>
You aren't contributing anything useful on this matter, you are just
making noise.

According to wikipedia and confirmed at the sites when possible:

PC World positive review of mbam http://snipr.com/vm30q Editorial Review
of Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware

CNET Editors' Choice Awards 2009 Winners - link no longer available

Bleeping computer recommends mbam for removal of 2 fake security apps, -
links working

Positive reviews from Network World and IT Reviews.

If you are concerned about installing mbam, there is a portable version
of mbam available, but not at portable apps.

mbam had a legal conflict with IOBit, claiming iobit infringed IP.
During that battle would have been a good time for iobit to claim that
mbam harbored 'gremlins', but it did not. It only claimed that it
didn't intentionally infringe IP and that remedies had been taken about
mbam's concerns.


--
Mike Easter

[JD]

~BD~ wrote:
> BD said
>
>> Maybe someone like David Kaye has the experience to determine if a
>> machine is actually clean after installing and running MBAM. Someone,
>> surely, has carried out an independent check to give such a widely
>> used
>> facility a clean bill of health. Whilst MBAM is obviously highly
>> effective at removing 'malware' why is it considered impossible for
>> the
>> downloaded software to leave its own gremlin within the cleaned
>> machine?
>
> Dustin Cook said
>
> Malwarebytes has thousands of happy users, gets praise every single day
> on many forums; continues to be one of the top rated downloads for
> antimalware at cnet.com. What you claim just doesn't jive with reality.
> Your consiperacy theory BS aside, that is.
>
> ******
>
> My question remains unanswered.
>
> I'm *not* claiming anything - just seeking the truth!
>

Are you SuperDave? Some form of Superman seeking truth, justice and the
American way?

You remind me of Chris Butts. I see you changed your sig file because it
used to say you were seeking the real truth. Hmmmm.

It seems to me your questions have been answered but not to your
satisfaction. Sorry.

--
JD..

[Jenn]

"Mike Easter" <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote in message
news:83350kFrb1U1@mid.individual.net...
> ~BD~ wrote:
<snip>
> mbam had a legal conflict with IOBit, claiming iobit infringed IP. During
> that battle would have been a good time for iobit to claim that mbam
> harbored 'gremlins', but it did not. It only claimed that it didn't
> intentionally infringe IP and that remedies had been taken about mbam's
> concerns.
>


What does *infringe IP* mean?
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/

[John Mason Jr]

On 4/19/2010 4:40 AM, ~BD~ wrote:
> BD said
>
>> Maybe someone like David Kaye has the experience to determine if a
>> machine is actually clean after installing and running MBAM. Someone,
>> surely, has carried out an independent check to give such a widely
>> used
>> facility a clean bill of health. Whilst MBAM is obviously highly
>> effective at removing 'malware' why is it considered impossible for
>> the
>> downloaded software to leave its own gremlin within the cleaned
>> machine?
>
> Dustin Cook said
>
> Malwarebytes has thousands of happy users, gets praise every single day
> on many forums; continues to be one of the top rated downloads for
> antimalware at cnet.com. What you claim just doesn't jive with reality.
> Your consiperacy theory BS aside, that is.
>
> ******
>
> My question remains unanswered.
>
> I'm *not* claiming anything - just seeking the truth!
>

If you were really seeking the truth you would find a reputable firm to
do the analysis you want and pay them.

Actually to make sure you get the right results contract 3 firms
separately, be sure to post the results when you are done.

John

[Dustin Cook]

"~BD~" <BoaterDave.NoSpam@Hotmail.co.uk> wrote in news:hqh4th$pg8$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> BD said
>
>> Maybe someone like David Kaye has the experience to determine if a
>> machine is actually clean after installing and running MBAM. Someone,
>> surely, has carried out an independent check to give such a widely
>> used
>> facility a clean bill of health. Whilst MBAM is obviously highly
>> effective at removing 'malware' why is it considered impossible for
>> the
>> downloaded software to leave its own gremlin within the cleaned
>> machine?
>
> Dustin Cook said
>
> Malwarebytes has thousands of happy users, gets praise every single day
> on many forums; continues to be one of the top rated downloads for
> antimalware at cnet.com. What you claim just doesn't jive with reality.
> Your consiperacy theory BS aside, that is.
>
> ******
>
> My question remains unanswered.
>
> I'm *not* claiming anything - just seeking the truth!

Your question has no basis in reality, Dave. You took the koolaid from
your code thieving pissant pcbutts and ran with it. You aren't seeking
anything. Your just trying to incite issues between myself and you. All
because I wouldn't answer your stupid questions.




--
"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge
this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior

[Dustin Cook]

"Jenn" <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote in
news:hqhprl$tle$1@news.eternal-september.org:

> "Mike Easter" <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote in message
> news:83350kFrb1U1@mid.individual.net...
>> ~BD~ wrote:
> <snip>
>> mbam had a legal conflict with IOBit, claiming iobit infringed IP.
>> During that battle would have been a good time for iobit to claim
>> that mbam harbored 'gremlins', but it did not. It only claimed that
>> it didn't intentionally infringe IP and that remedies had been taken
>> about mbam's concerns.
>>
>
>
> What does *infringe IP* mean?

IP=intellectual property. IOBit reverse engineered mbams database and used
alot of it, line for line; as was copy/pasted from ours. Infringe means
they used it, without permission.


--
"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge
this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior

[Dustin Cook]

John Mason Jr <notvalid@cox.net.invalid> wrote in
news:hqhqvq$i2p$1@news.eternal-september.org:

> On 4/19/2010 4:40 AM, ~BD~ wrote:
>> BD said
>>
>>> Maybe someone like David Kaye has the experience to determine if a
>>> machine is actually clean after installing and running MBAM.
>>> Someone, surely, has carried out an independent check to give such a
>>> widely used
>>> facility a clean bill of health. Whilst MBAM is obviously highly
>>> effective at removing 'malware' why is it considered impossible for
>>> the
>>> downloaded software to leave its own gremlin within the cleaned
>>> machine?
>>
>> Dustin Cook said
>>
>> Malwarebytes has thousands of happy users, gets praise every single
>> day on many forums; continues to be one of the top rated downloads
>> for antimalware at cnet.com. What you claim just doesn't jive with
>> reality. Your consiperacy theory BS aside, that is.
>>
>> ******
>>
>> My question remains unanswered.
>>
>> I'm *not* claiming anything - just seeking the truth!
>>
>
> If you were really seeking the truth you would find a reputable firm
> to do the analysis you want and pay them.
>
> Actually to make sure you get the right results contract 3 firms
> separately, be sure to post the results when you are done.
>
> John

When he's finished with that, I'd like a nice full formal apology on
behalf of mbam and myself for the innuendo remarks. Well, I'll take the
one for me, mbam can deal with him on their own time.




--
"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh..
nudge this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior

[Dustin Cook]

"~BD~" <BoaterDave.NoSpam@Hotmail.co.uk> wrote in news:hqh4th$pg8$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> BD said

[nothing you idiot, he's dead locked in my basement] -eminem.

Am I the only malware fighter you can dig up any old dirt on? is that why
you target me with your posts BD? Your not seeking truth, in any possible
way shape or form.


--
"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge
this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior