Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: Re: Specter Pro -- Spyware

  1. #1
    ~BD~ Guest

    Re: Specter Pro -- Spyware

    FromTheRafters wrote:
    > "~BD~"<BoaterDave@hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:8aydnQR6ar0tr0DWnZ2dnUVZ8oKdnZ2d@bt.com...
    >> FromTheRafters wrote:
    >>> "~BD~"<BoaterDave@hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in message
    >>> news:156dnS2rcsGUg0HWnZ2dnUVZ8o6dnZ2d@bt.com...

    >> [...]
    >>>> *What if* ....... ?
    >>>>
    >>>> One or more of those 'trusted' malware cleaning forums (or even a
    >>>> trusted software programme) could, surely, download such a programme
    >>>> onto a user's machine so that, forever afterwards, whatever is done
    >>>> on
    >>>> that machine may be monitored by an outside agency.

    >>
    >> Thank you for responding FTR!
    >>
    >>> That's not very likely,

    >>
    >> But .... *I* believe that it is *possible*!
    >> ********
    >>
    >> As I've said elsewhere ..........
    >>
    >> "What a super ruse it would be, eh? - to clear a machine of everyone
    >> else's 'nasties' but then, perhaps, leave their own package installed
    >> on the user's machine. No one would ever suspect, would they?"
    >>
    >>> such a trojan would soon be discovered and dealt
    >>> with - very bad for the 'trusted' source's reputation.[...]

    >>
    >> Now this is where we seem to have a *real* difference of opinion, FTR!
    >>
    >> Just *who* would discover such covert malware. With today's high-speed
    >> and powerful machines a *user* is highly *unlikely* to discover that
    >> they have become part of a botnet! If their /cleaned/ machine is
    >> performing *better* that it had in a long while, why would the *user*
    >> suspect anything untoward?

    >
    > Bigger picture:
    >
    > Remember the quote about how you can fool some of the people some of the
    > time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time?


    “You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of
    the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all
    the time.” Abraham Lincoln

    > Malware like
    > that relies on the first part of that quote. It doesn't care about the
    > second part because there is no shortage of fools. Such software does
    > eventually get discovered, but usually cannot be traced back to a single
    > source - there are many sources and they change location often. If
    > someone has a *real firewall* then this type of commercial malware's
    > activities can soon be discovered.
    >
    > So asking "who would" is the wrong question - the individual is
    > insignificant in comparison to the whole. Instead you must ask yourself
    > if *anybody* would discover the hidden function, and what that would
    > mean to an otherwise legitimate (contactable) business.


    OK. Let' use an example.

    I do not consider Aumha.net to be a business (do you?)

    Let's say someone goes there for the cleaning of their machine and all
    seems to go to plan. Is there *any* company/organisation which makes
    random checks on such 'help' sites to ensure that nothing untoward,
    along the lines which I've described, is happening - to ensure that they
    are *not* compromising the machines of naive 'customers'?

    >> My limited understanding of matters is that once a machine is under
    >> the control of a botmaster, all personal control is effectively lost.
    >>
    >> Do you dispute this?

    >
    > Yes, but I may be reading it differently than you are. It would depend
    > on how much control is still afforded you by the nature of the offending
    > program.


    Perhaps you are. I meant that an outside agency may do whatever they
    wish - whenever they wish - with the owner of the machine being
    completely unaware of the 'intruder'. This may only be achieved if the
    user can still carry out whatever he/she wishes to do and does not
    become suspicious in any way.

    HTH

    --
    Dave

  2. #2
    JD Guest

    Re: Specter Pro -- Spyware

    ~BD~ wrote:
    > FromTheRafters wrote:
    >> "~BD~"<BoaterDave@hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in message
    >> news:8aydnQR6ar0tr0DWnZ2dnUVZ8oKdnZ2d@bt.com...
    >>> FromTheRafters wrote:
    >>>> "~BD~"<BoaterDave@hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in message
    >>>> news:156dnS2rcsGUg0HWnZ2dnUVZ8o6dnZ2d@bt.com...
    >>> [...]
    >>>>> *What if* ....... ?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> One or more of those 'trusted' malware cleaning forums (or even a
    >>>>> trusted software programme) could, surely, download such a programme
    >>>>> onto a user's machine so that, forever afterwards, whatever is done
    >>>>> on
    >>>>> that machine may be monitored by an outside agency.
    >>>
    >>> Thank you for responding FTR!
    >>>
    >>>> That's not very likely,
    >>>
    >>> But .... *I* believe that it is *possible*!
    >>> ********
    >>>
    >>> As I've said elsewhere ..........
    >>>
    >>> "What a super ruse it would be, eh? - to clear a machine of everyone
    >>> else's 'nasties' but then, perhaps, leave their own package installed
    >>> on the user's machine. No one would ever suspect, would they?"
    >>>
    >>>> such a trojan would soon be discovered and dealt
    >>>> with - very bad for the 'trusted' source's reputation.[...]
    >>>
    >>> Now this is where we seem to have a *real* difference of opinion, FTR!
    >>>
    >>> Just *who* would discover such covert malware. With today's high-speed
    >>> and powerful machines a *user* is highly *unlikely* to discover that
    >>> they have become part of a botnet! If their /cleaned/ machine is
    >>> performing *better* that it had in a long while, why would the *user*
    >>> suspect anything untoward?

    >>
    >> Bigger picture:
    >>
    >> Remember the quote about how you can fool some of the people some of the
    >> time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time?

    >
    > “You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of
    > the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all
    > the time.” Abraham Lincoln
    >
    >> Malware like
    >> that relies on the first part of that quote. It doesn't care about the
    >> second part because there is no shortage of fools. Such software does
    >> eventually get discovered, but usually cannot be traced back to a single
    >> source - there are many sources and they change location often. If
    >> someone has a *real firewall* then this type of commercial malware's
    >> activities can soon be discovered.
    >>
    >> So asking "who would" is the wrong question - the individual is
    >> insignificant in comparison to the whole. Instead you must ask yourself
    >> if *anybody* would discover the hidden function, and what that would
    >> mean to an otherwise legitimate (contactable) business.

    >
    > OK. Let' use an example.
    >
    > I do not consider Aumha.net to be a business (do you?)
    >
    > Let's say someone goes there for the cleaning of their machine and all
    > seems to go to plan. Is there *any* company/organisation which makes
    > random checks on such 'help' sites to ensure that nothing untoward,
    > along the lines which I've described, is happening - to ensure that they
    > are *not* compromising the machines of naive 'customers'?
    >
    >>> My limited understanding of matters is that once a machine is under
    >>> the control of a botmaster, all personal control is effectively lost.
    >>>
    >>> Do you dispute this?

    >>
    >> Yes, but I may be reading it differently than you are. It would depend
    >> on how much control is still afforded you by the nature of the offending
    >> program.

    >
    > Perhaps you are. I meant that an outside agency may do whatever they
    > wish - whenever they wish - with the owner of the machine being
    > completely unaware of the 'intruder'. This may only be achieved if the
    > user can still carry out whatever he/she wishes to do and does not
    > become suspicious in any way.
    >
    > HTH
    >


    boater Dave, You are so full of $hit my monitor stinks when I see your
    messages. Try a slow boat to anywhere but these newsgroups. OK?

    --
    JD..

  3. #3
    ~BD~ Guest

    Re: Specter Pro -- Spyware

    JD wrote:
    > ~BD~ wrote:
    >> FromTheRafters wrote:
    >>> "~BD~"<BoaterDave@hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in message
    >>> news:8aydnQR6ar0tr0DWnZ2dnUVZ8oKdnZ2d@bt.com...
    >>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
    >>>>> "~BD~"<BoaterDave@hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:156dnS2rcsGUg0HWnZ2dnUVZ8o6dnZ2d@bt.com...
    >>>> [...]
    >>>>>> *What if* ....... ?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> One or more of those 'trusted' malware cleaning forums (or even a
    >>>>>> trusted software programme) could, surely, download such a programme
    >>>>>> onto a user's machine so that, forever afterwards, whatever is done
    >>>>>> on
    >>>>>> that machine may be monitored by an outside agency.
    >>>>
    >>>> Thank you for responding FTR!
    >>>>
    >>>>> That's not very likely,
    >>>>
    >>>> But .... *I* believe that it is *possible*!
    >>>> ********
    >>>>
    >>>> As I've said elsewhere ..........
    >>>>
    >>>> "What a super ruse it would be, eh? - to clear a machine of everyone
    >>>> else's 'nasties' but then, perhaps, leave their own package installed
    >>>> on the user's machine. No one would ever suspect, would they?"
    >>>>
    >>>>> such a trojan would soon be discovered and dealt
    >>>>> with - very bad for the 'trusted' source's reputation.[...]
    >>>>
    >>>> Now this is where we seem to have a *real* difference of opinion, FTR!
    >>>>
    >>>> Just *who* would discover such covert malware. With today's high-speed
    >>>> and powerful machines a *user* is highly *unlikely* to discover that
    >>>> they have become part of a botnet! If their /cleaned/ machine is
    >>>> performing *better* that it had in a long while, why would the *user*
    >>>> suspect anything untoward?
    >>>
    >>> Bigger picture:
    >>>
    >>> Remember the quote about how you can fool some of the people some of the
    >>> time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time?

    >>
    >> “You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of
    >> the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all
    >> the time.” Abraham Lincoln
    >>
    >>> Malware like
    >>> that relies on the first part of that quote. It doesn't care about the
    >>> second part because there is no shortage of fools. Such software does
    >>> eventually get discovered, but usually cannot be traced back to a single
    >>> source - there are many sources and they change location often. If
    >>> someone has a *real firewall* then this type of commercial malware's
    >>> activities can soon be discovered.
    >>>
    >>> So asking "who would" is the wrong question - the individual is
    >>> insignificant in comparison to the whole. Instead you must ask yourself
    >>> if *anybody* would discover the hidden function, and what that would
    >>> mean to an otherwise legitimate (contactable) business.

    >>
    >> OK. Let' use an example.
    >>
    >> I do not consider Aumha.net to be a business (do you?)
    >>
    >> Let's say someone goes there for the cleaning of their machine and all
    >> seems to go to plan. Is there *any* company/organisation which makes
    >> random checks on such 'help' sites to ensure that nothing untoward,
    >> along the lines which I've described, is happening - to ensure that they
    >> are *not* compromising the machines of naive 'customers'?
    >>
    >>>> My limited understanding of matters is that once a machine is under
    >>>> the control of a botmaster, all personal control is effectively lost.
    >>>>
    >>>> Do you dispute this?
    >>>
    >>> Yes, but I may be reading it differently than you are. It would depend
    >>> on how much control is still afforded you by the nature of the offending
    >>> program.

    >>
    >> Perhaps you are. I meant that an outside agency may do whatever they
    >> wish - whenever they wish - with the owner of the machine being
    >> completely unaware of the 'intruder'. This may only be achieved if the
    >> user can still carry out whatever he/she wishes to do and does not
    >> become suspicious in any way.
    >>
    >> HTH
    >>

    >
    > boater Dave, You are so full of $hit my monitor stinks when I see your
    > messages. Try a slow boat to anywhere but these newsgroups. OK?
    >


    You might enjoy life more if you stopped complaining about things over
    which you have no control. None whatsoever!

    No one *makes* you read what I have to say (there again, maybe you
    don't!) and it costs you nothing. Simply ignore me if what I say offends
    you.

    Enjoy your day!

    BD

  4. #4
    FromTheRafters Guest

    Re: Specter Pro -- Spyware

    "~BD~" <BoaterDave@hotmail..co.uk> wrote in message
    newsoOdnQEbf6P_6EPWnZ2dnUVZ8kudnZ2d@bt.com...

    > You might enjoy life more if you stopped complaining about things over
    > which you have no control. None whatsoever!
    >
    > No one *makes* you read what I have to say (there again, maybe you
    > don't!) and it costs you nothing. Simply ignore me if what I say
    > offends you.


    ....and be sure to announce to the world that you are officially ignoring
    his posts. D



  5. #5
    ~BD~ Guest

    Re: Specter Pro -- Spyware

    FromTheRafters wrote:
    > "~BD~"<BoaterDave@hotmail..co.uk> wrote in message
    > newsoOdnQEbf6P_6EPWnZ2dnUVZ8kudnZ2d@bt.com...
    >
    >> You might enjoy life more if you stopped complaining about things over
    >> which you have no control. None whatsoever!
    >>
    >> No one *makes* you read what I have to say (there again, maybe you
    >> don't!) and it costs you nothing. Simply ignore me if what I say
    >> offends you.

    >
    > ...and be sure to announce to the world that you are officially ignoring
    > his posts. D
    >
    >


    Hahaha!

    Shouldn't you have said that to JD - not to me?!!!

    BD

  6. #6
    JD Guest

    Re: Specter Pro -- Spyware

    ~BD~ wrote:
    > JD wrote:
    >snip, snip, snip
    >
    >> boater Dave, You are so full of $hit my monitor stinks when I see your
    >> messages. Try a slow boat to anywhere but these newsgroups. OK?
    >>

    >
    > You might enjoy life more if you stopped complaining about things over
    > which you have no control. None whatsoever!
    >
    > No one *makes* you read what I have to say (there again, maybe you
    > don't!) and it costs you nothing. Simply ignore me if what I say offends
    > you.
    >
    > Enjoy your day!
    >
    > BD


    I thought we were turning this into a friend's forum? Screw the
    newsgroup, no need to discuss sypware. Lets talk about our friends.
    Offer opinions that no one cares about.

    So I wasn't complaining. I only offer friendly observations. You don't
    offend me, you're a moron.

    And that's the real truth.

    If everybody stopped replying to you, would you continue to just post
    and answer your own messages? Why don't we all see what happens?

    --
    JD..

  7. #7
    Max Wachtel Guest

    Re: Specter Pro -- Spyware

    JD wrote:

    > If everybody stopped replying to you, would you continue to just post
    > and answer your own messages? Why don't we all see what happens?
    >

    +1
    --
    This message was created using SeaMonkey Portable.
    http://portableapps.com/apps/interne...onkey_portable
    Virus Removal Instructions
    http://sites.google.com/site/keepingwindowsclean/home
    Max's Favorite Freeware
    http://sites.google.com/site/keeping...clean/freeware

  8. #8
    FromTheRafters Guest

    Re: Specter Pro -- Spyware

    "~BD~" <BoaterDave@hotmail..co.uk> wrote in message
    news:zqednffVZ62DPkPWnZ2dnUVZ7qednZ2d@bt.com...
    > FromTheRafters wrote:
    >> "~BD~"<BoaterDave@hotmail..co.uk> wrote in message
    >> newsoOdnQEbf6P_6EPWnZ2dnUVZ8kudnZ2d@bt.com...
    >>
    >>> You might enjoy life more if you stopped complaining about things
    >>> over
    >>> which you have no control. None whatsoever!
    >>>
    >>> No one *makes* you read what I have to say (there again, maybe you
    >>> don't!) and it costs you nothing. Simply ignore me if what I say
    >>> offends you.

    >>
    >> ...and be sure to announce to the world that you are officially
    >> ignoring
    >> his posts. D
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Hahaha!
    >
    > Shouldn't you have said that to JD - not to me?!!!


    Sorry for the misunderstanding, it was meant as an unsolicited addendum
    to your statement to JD.

    Trying to get others to ignore a poster rather than just plain ignoring
    a poster seems futile to me. Never have I seen it result in making the
    offending poster go away - they just go to another more seemingly lively
    group and crosspost back.



  9. #9
    FromTheRafters Guest

    Re: Specter Pro -- Spyware

    "JD" <JD@example.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Y5GdnWlufcehV0PWnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@posted.grand ecom...

    > If everybody stopped replying to you, would you continue to just post
    > and answer your own messages?


    Bingo!!



  10. #10
    JD Guest

    Re: Specter Pro -- Spyware

    FromTheRafters wrote:
    > "JD"<JD@example.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:Y5GdnWlufcehV0PWnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@posted.grand ecom...
    >
    >> If everybody stopped replying to you, would you continue to just post
    >> and answer your own messages?

    >
    > Bingo!!
    >
    >


    Let's find out. I think he'd grow weary of his little bs game and move
    onto another newsgroup. We'll never know because it's not going to
    happen. And then Jenn pops up with her moron statements. I hate to see
    this newsgroup turn into this but so it goes.

    --
    JD..

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •