Re: A Google Groups conundrum

[~BD~]

On 26/08/2010 16:24, Dustin wrote:
> ~BD~<.BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk.> wrote in
> newscWdnTunE8tj0-jRnZ2dnUVZ8l2dnZ2d@bt.com:
>>
>> I'm not quite as ignorant as you perceive Peter. I *am* aware that
>> *any* computer /can/ be infected - it is a machine and thus
>> imperfect!
>
> I doubt it. I think you really are that stupid, ignorance is curable,
> yet you continue to do the same things you've been taken to task for
> previously; so no, your not ignorant, your stupid.
>

Do you think *you* were stupid when you took on an industry
professional, Dustin? *He* is still employed and highly thought of!

Some might like to review your attitude towards others backalong:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...dc2e122be06d18

OR http://preview.************/33gppak

It's time for you to demonstrate that you really *have* changed!

--
Dave - sticking to the task of ruffling the feathers of bad guys!

[Dustin]

~BD~ <.BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk.> wrote in
news7SdnSTWRfeBBOvRnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@bt.com:

>> Mostly marketing FUD. Cluley was good for that. not much else.
>
> I don't agree with that. The cnet article was, AFAICT, an attempt by
> the author Elinor Mills to elicit a wide range of views from
> industry professionals

I really don't care if you agree.. I wasn't stating an opinion in so
much as I was stating a fact..

>>> "Graham Cluley, senior technical consultant with Sophos anti-virus
>>> believes Raid could now be in big trouble. He said, "Raid is
>>> playing a very, very dangerous game. The US authorities have shown
>>> that they are prepared to pursue this sort of thing by any means."
>>
>> Yes, well; obviously that never happened. Raid didn't do anything
>> they could prove was illegal. Cluley was nothing more than a
>> glorified mouthpiece for Sophos antivirus.
>
> Is he not still?

AFAIK, he is.

>> Are you trying again to start trouble?
>
> Not at all!

No? Strange, considering you pasted an article which has nothing to do
with the conversation. What else would you bother pasting an article
badmouthing me?

>> Not that it matters much in this
>> case, Cluley was full of hot air looking for free media
>> publications (ie: free advertising for sophos). Back then, as they
>> still tend to do, many publications just take those individuals
>> word as if it comes from God himself.
>
> Reporters for magazines and newspapers have to take advice from
> *someone* and Graham Cluley has a good reputation I believe. Do you
> think otherwise?

Cluley has a reputation as being a mouthpiece, nothing more; nothing
less.

>> That article of Cluley's is well over 10 years old and has nothing
>> whatsoever to do with google groups OR mac malware. So why did you
>> feel the need to post a section of it and then point towards me?
>
> Did you actually read the cnet article? Do you know anything about
> the author? http://www.cnet.com/profile/elinormills/

I read the article when it was first published; I'm sure I have it
archived here someplace. Again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with
the conversation at hand; The reporter has written several other
articles, so there was no real valid reason for you to cite that one in
particular and reference me.

> Elinor is a Senior Writer - you may watch her chatting here if you
> wish: http://www.cnet.com/profile/elinormills/#videos

Again, this article has nothing to do with the conversation here.

> I wanted to make sure posters on Scorched-Earth know you for what
> you really are. I've read slanging matches between you and Graham on
> Google Groups, most of which I guess you'd like to be forgotten. For
> his part, I have *him* down in my 'good guy' book. Although I can't
> find you on Wikipedia, one may read a bit about Graham here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Cluley

To know me for what I really am? Yet, you quote a snippit of an article
written more than 10 years ago for this? Do you think I'm trying to
hide in some fashion and your doing the noble thing by preventing it?
Is that what you think is going on?

Why would you be able to find me on wikipedia? I'm nobodies mouth
piece. Your a sick ****, BD.




--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.

[Dustin]

~BD~ <.BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk.> wrote in
news:T_idnenptc5fBuvRnZ2dnUVZ8lGdnZ2d@bt.com:

> On 26/08/2010 16:24, Dustin wrote:
>> ~BD~<.BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk.> wrote in
>> newscWdnTunE8tj0-jRnZ2dnUVZ8l2dnZ2d@bt.com:
>>>
>>> I'm not quite as ignorant as you perceive Peter. I *am* aware that
>>> *any* computer /can/ be infected - it is a machine and thus
>>> imperfect!
>>
>> I doubt it. I think you really are that stupid, ignorance is
>> curable, yet you continue to do the same things you've been taken
>> to task for previously; so no, your not ignorant, your stupid.
>>
>
> Do you think *you* were stupid when you took on an industry
> professional, Dustin? *He* is still employed and highly thought of!

When I did what now? BD, you have no idea why I'm no longer with
malwarebytes; so you might as well just quit with the innuendo crap.
Cluley is highly thought of in the antivirus community; but not for
programming/coding or actual expertise of any sort, but for being quick
and witty with answering questions concerning Sophos antivirus
products. I'm amazed at what you consider to be a professional in an
industry. He doesn't write definitions, doesn't study malware/viruses
or anything of the sort; he's in the help department. Ho hum. Real
"professional." As for taking him on, lots of us had fun with cluley
back in the day. google the coconuts game virus if you doubt me.

> It's time for you to demonstrate that you really *have* changed!

That's piss easy. The last virus, was irok; it'll be turning 11 years
old in a few months. What have I done since irok? Developed and
maintained my own antimalware tool called BugHunter for 3 years, worked
for malwarebytes for 2 years; 5 years worth of fulltime dedicated
antimalware research. Here's a glowing review:

http://www.completelyfreesoftware.co...31_BUGHUN.html

I know you'll love this part the best:
"BugHunter is a "must have" for all PC users."

You can thank me later. <G>

Time for you to be doing something more important than trying to find
old dirt on me. The more you try and irk me, the less likely I'll ever
help you do anything. In fact, I think I'll forward those emails you
sent me over to the site owners; they might like to know about you
trying to hire hackers to trespass on their equipment for you. That's
illegal in the states... is it in your country as well?





--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.

[Dustin]

~BD~ <.BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk.> wrote in
news:T_idnenptc5fBuvRnZ2dnUVZ8lGdnZ2d@bt.com:

> Some might like to review your attitude towards others backalong:

I wonder if anyone else would like to read our email correspondence; so
that they might have a more informed opinion of you and your actions.
It's not that of a noble soul.

> It's time for you to demonstrate that you really *have* changed!

I think I will provide our email correspondence, I grow tired of you
pretending to be a good guy who's out to expose me as a "bad" guy of
some sort. I suspect it's time our readers got to know the real you,
the cowardly BD who hides behind a keyboard and tries to play
detective. The cowardly BD who tries to hire outside help to break into
or otherwise, trespass on systems he doesn't own. I'm sure the guys at
annexcafe will be interested in reading your solicitations. You even
offered cash for my services.. You're not the good guy you claim to be,
your much worse than I was a decade ago.

I've got thousands of emails to pour thru, so you just keep digging
yourself a hole with old articles specifically posted to taunt or
otherwise annoy me, and i'll release our email correspondence for
everyone to see where I'm coming from and then they'll see why i don't
like you, don't trust you, and will not help you. They'll also see your
childish revenge for my refusal to help; as we're civil in the emails,
until I make you mad and refuse to help; then we're in usenet and
you've done nothing but try and belittle me since then. Even a child
will see what's going on.

None of those acts are that of a good guy.




--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.

[~BD~]

On 26/08/2010 19:06, Dustin wrote:
> ~BD~<.BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk.> wrote in
> news:T_idnenptc5fBuvRnZ2dnUVZ8lGdnZ2d@bt.com:

>> It's time for you to demonstrate that you really *have* changed!
>
> That's piss easy. The last virus, was irok; it'll be turning 11 years
> old in a few months. What have I done since irok? Developed and
> maintained my own antimalware tool called BugHunter for 3 years, worked
> for malwarebytes for 2 years; 5 years worth of fulltime dedicated
> antimalware research. Here's a glowing review:
>
> http://www.completelyfreesoftware.co...31_BUGHUN.html

I'd have felt proud to have seen that written about me!

> I know you'll love this part the best:
> "BugHunter is a "must have" for all PC users."
>
> You can thank me later.<G>
>
> Time for you to be doing something more important than trying to find
> old dirt on me.

I agree. I never wished to fight with you, Dustin.

> The more you try and irk me, the less likely I'll ever
> help you do anything.

You've previously said that you would *never* help me pinpoint those who
wish to cause us harm. I've never quite understood that.

In fact, I think I'll forward those emails you
> sent me over to the site owners; they might like to know about you
> trying to hire hackers to trespass on their equipment for you. That's
> illegal in the states... is it in your country as well?

I emailed Gregory Gooden a number of times myself. It was his total
disinterest in telling his newsgroup members about the vastly changed
situation regarding Cybercrime and malware which first attracted my
attention.

Moving on .... (about *you*!)

QUOTE (Don Pelotas @ 23.11.2007 22:51) - Kaspersky Global Moderator

I'm sure he is doing his best and nothing wrong with that, but there is
no way one guy can bring out an effective updated everyday scanner
single-handedly today, the amount of malware makes this 100% impossible,
even Kaspersky with 7-10 analysts at work 24/7 doing nothing else is
finding it hard work to keep up adding signatures...................it's
pure maths.

What it might be somewhat useful for (I say might) is if it at any given
time is detecting some variant before any of the big vendors do, this is
certainly possible.............................is it worth the trouble
of scanning time after time finding nothing real?...not IMO. I'm not
trying to be as negative as possible, just shooting as straight as I
can................again IMHO. If you find it useful, it doesn't really
matter what I or anyone else thinks in the end.

By BD (Nov 2007)
*****

Thanks for your comments, Don. It is for the reasons you state that I
have purchased and am using KA7!

However ................. <g>

I have read that malware nowadays is capable of rendering a resident
Anti-Virus/Anti-Spyware programme ineffective, whilst leaving the user
of a PC unaware of this fact. One of my reasons for selecting Kaspersky
was its reputedly excellent self-defence mechanism, hopefully enabling
KA7 to remain effective.

I've also read that malware can set up its own self-defence mechanism -
whereby it can protect itself from on-line scanners too - again giving a
user the false impression that his/her PC is 'clean' when, in fact, it
isn't.

If I have misunderstood matters, I'm eager and willing to learn!

My (possibly incorrect) understanding of how BugHunter works is that it
effectively 'shuts down' the Windows OS (used by malware?) and scans
one's hard disk in DOS mode, thereby remaining effective at pin-pointing
and, if required, cleaning known malware files from a PC. I fully accept
that it must be impossible for just one individual to keep his programme
100% current, but it seems totally logical that, over time, and with
dedication, the vast majority of 'nasties' could be added to BugHunter.

My strong suspicion is that millions of computers worldwide will have
been infected by relatively 'old' versions of malware and might well
benefit from a scan by BugHunter should their own resident
Anti-Virus/Anti-Spyware programme have been rendered ineffective.

These a just my thoughts. I have no connection with the author of
BugHunter other than as stated earlier.

Dave

**

That came from this thread:

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php...1&hl=Bughunter

**

I've always wondered why you dropped your BugHunter project. I thought
you were doing *exactly* the right thing!

Maybe you will share the reason?

--
Dave

[Dustin]

~BD~ <.BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk.> wrote in
news:LvSdnd07pJLjJOvRnZ2dnUVZ8lKdnZ2d@bt.com:

> On 26/08/2010 19:06, Dustin wrote:
>> ~BD~<.BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk.> wrote in
>> news:T_idnenptc5fBuvRnZ2dnUVZ8lGdnZ2d@bt.com:
>
>>> It's time for you to demonstrate that you really *have* changed!
>>>
>>
>> That's piss easy. The last virus, was irok; it'll be turning 11
>> years old in a few months. What have I done since irok? Developed
>> and maintained my own antimalware tool called BugHunter for 3
>> years, worked for malwarebytes for 2 years; 5 years worth of
>> fulltime dedicated antimalware research. Here's a glowing review:
>>
>> http://www.completelyfreesoftware.co...31_BUGHUN.html
>
> I'd have felt proud to have seen that written about me!

I was. Still am. I spent alot of time on BugHunter.

> I agree. I never wished to fight with you, Dustin.

That's funny; your actions seem to indicate otherwise.

> You've previously said that you would *never* help me pinpoint those
> who wish to cause us harm. I've never quite understood that.

I never said anything about pinpointing those who wish to cause "us"
harm. I said I wouldn't help you gain unauthorized access on various
services that you asked me for. I don't believe those sites are full of
bad guys as you seem to think.

> Moving on .... (about *you*!)
>
> QUOTE (Don Pelotas @ 23.11.2007 22:51) - Kaspersky Global Moderator
>
> I'm sure he is doing his best and nothing wrong with that, but there
> is no way one guy can bring out an effective updated everyday
> scanner single-handedly today, the amount of malware makes this 100%
> impossible, even Kaspersky with 7-10 analysts at work 24/7 doing
> nothing else is finding it hard work to keep up adding
> signatures...................it's pure maths.

Agreed. BugHunter was initially designed to help me at work; find the
nasties left over after everybody else took a look. After sometime, I
decided to share the program.

> My (possibly incorrect) understanding of how BugHunter works is that
> it effectively 'shuts down' the Windows OS (used by malware?) and
> scans one's hard disk in DOS mode, thereby remaining effective at
> pin-pointing and, if required, cleaning known malware files from a
> PC. I fully accept that it must be impossible for just one
> individual to keep his programme 100% current, but it seems totally
> logical that, over time, and with dedication, the vast majority of
> 'nasties' could be added to BugHunter.

BugHunters database could be updated to allow it to detect many of the
static nasties I've seen lately, but it's pointless for me to take the
time to do so.

> Maybe you will share the reason?

Lack of time. I've already explained that before. BugHunters engine and
that of malwarebytes are so different there was no way for me to be
able to add definitions to both of them for the same sample without
doubling the work load. As malwarebytes was a paying gig and BugHunter
wasn't, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see which would get
dropped.




--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.

[~BD~]

On 26/08/2010 20:09, Dustin wrote:
> ~BD~<.BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk.> wrote in
> news:LvSdnd07pJLjJOvRnZ2dnUVZ8lKdnZ2d@bt.com:
[....]

>> I'd have felt proud to have seen that written about me!
>
> I was. Still am. I spent a lot of time on BugHunter.

That's good to learn - time well spent IMO.

As you are well aware, I tied it. Your 'friend' Li (the Annexcafe
administrator) never reported back AFAIK with any results of testing her
system ..... and BugHunter was, AFAIK, *ever* promoted to members of
Annexcafe newsgroups to try.

>> I agree. I never wished to fight with you, Dustin.
>
> That's funny; your actions seem to indicate otherwise.

It must seem like that!

>> You've previously said that you would *never* help me pinpoint those
>> who wish to cause us harm. I've never quite understood that.
>
> I never said anything about pinpointing those who wish to cause "us"
> harm. I said I wouldn't help you gain unauthorized access on various
> services that you asked me for. I don't believe those sites are full of
> bad guys as you seem to think.

Whilst you might not *believe* that there may be 'bad apples in the
barrel' - it does *not* mean that there aren't any!

>> Moving on .... (about *you*!)
>>
>> QUOTE (Don Pelotas @ 23.11.2007 22:51) - Kaspersky Global Moderator
>>
>> I'm sure he is doing his best and nothing wrong with that, but there
>> is no way one guy can bring out an effective updated everyday
>> scanner single-handedly today, the amount of malware makes this 100%
>> impossible, even Kaspersky with 7-10 analysts at work 24/7 doing
>> nothing else is finding it hard work to keep up adding
>> signatures...................it's pure maths.
>
> Agreed. BugHunter was initially designed to help me at work; find the
> nasties left over after everybody else took a look. After sometime, I
> decided to share the program.

That was a really positive thing to do, IMO.

>> My (possibly incorrect) understanding of how BugHunter works is that
>> it effectively 'shuts down' the Windows OS (used by malware?) and
>> scans one's hard disk in DOS mode, thereby remaining effective at
>> pin-pointing and, if required, cleaning known malware files from a
>> PC. I fully accept that it must be impossible for just one
>> individual to keep his programme 100% current, but it seems totally
>> logical that, over time, and with dedication, the vast majority of
>> 'nasties' could be added to BugHunter.
>
> BugHunters database could be updated to allow it to detect many of the
> static nasties I've seen lately, but it's pointless for me to take the
> time to do so.

If by doing so you could provide help to, maybe, tens of thousands of
people, wouldn't you feel a certain sense of satisfaction? Not
'pointless' at all!

>> Maybe you will share the reason?
>
> Lack of time. I've already explained that before. BugHunters engine and
> that of malwarebytes are so different there was no way for me to be
> able to add definitions to both of them for the same sample without
> doubling the work load. As malwarebytes was a paying gig and BugHunter
> wasn't, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see which would get
> dropped.

Yes, even 'stupid' Dave understands *that* Dustin!

But you are your own man now - if you determine that you wish to use
your skills *for the force of good*, I have no doubt at all that you
will receive the required help and support when it is needed! ;-)

--
Dave - I wonder what Peter Foldes' view is of BugHunter. He has never said.

[Aardvark]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:13:18 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

> ex-Annexcafe posters who came here (to SE) originally ........
> ........... but who then left because they could not stand the heat! ;-)

****ing pussies.



--
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.
Then I realised God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and
prayed for forgiveness." - Emo Phillips

[Aardvark]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:41:00 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

> I wanted to make sure posters on Scorched-Earth know you for what you
> really are.

I, for one, don't give a **** what he did in previous incarnations. We
all grow up.



--
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.
Then I realised God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and
prayed for forgiveness." - Emo Phillips

[~BD~]

On 27/08/2010 01:04, Aardvark wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:41:00 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> I wanted to make sure posters on Scorched-Earth know you for what you
>> really are.
>
> I, for one, don't give a **** what he did in previous incarnations. We
> all grow up.
>

Believe it or not ..... IAWTP!