Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware 1.51.0.1200 [Released]

[Dustin]

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote in news:is3ta6$3ic$1@news.albasani.net:

> siljaline wrote:
>
>> Announcement - changelog, chatter, etc >
>>
>> (http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index...howtopic=85992)
>>
>> Note: The mirror sites for those that may wish to install over top
>> are not necessarily showing the new version.
>>
>> For those that have turn of the phone-home feature, re-enable to
>> obtain the new build via this method.
>
> Regarding the free version:
>
> They don't house the download at their own site. Instead the
> download link for their free version takes you to the download.com
> (CNet) page, so you might as well as start at:
>
> http://download.cnet.com/Malwarebyte...-8022_4-108045
> 72.html
>
> The changelog is found at:
>
> http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index...&st=0&p=435265
> &#entry435265
>
> Since the vast majority (almost all) of the updates apply only
> against the Pro (paid) version, there isn't much point in updating
> if you're using the free version.

You really need to update to ensure the definitions can all continue to
be properly interpreted by the underlying engine. Please don't post
advice when you're talking from your ass.




--
Why drink the water from my hand?
Contagious as you think I am
Just tilt my sun towards your domain
Your cup runneth over again

[VanguardLH]

Dustin wrote:

> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote in news:is3ta6$3ic$1@news.albasani.net:
>
>> siljaline wrote:
>>
>>> Announcement - changelog, chatter, etc >
>>>
>>> (http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index...howtopic=85992)
>>>
>>> Note: The mirror sites for those that may wish to install over top
>>> are not necessarily showing the new version.
>>>
>>> For those that have turn of the phone-home feature, re-enable to
>>> obtain the new build via this method.
>>
>> Regarding the free version:
>>
>> They don't house the download at their own site. Instead the
>> download link for their free version takes you to the download.com
>> (CNet) page, so you might as well as start at:
>>
>> http://download.cnet.com/Malwarebyte...-8022_4-108045
>> 72.html
>>
>> The changelog is found at:
>>
>> http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index...&st=0&p=435265
>> &#entry435265
>>
>> Since the vast majority (almost all) of the updates apply only
>> against the Pro (paid) version, there isn't much point in updating
>> if you're using the free version.
>
> You really need to update to ensure the definitions can all continue to
> be properly interpreted by the underlying engine. Please don't post
> advice when you're talking from your ass.

I was referring to the *program* update which was the topic of this
thread. Yes, you still need to get the *signature* updates to remain up
to date. Since nothing in the new version (free or paid) has added new
heuristics or schemes for better detection, all you need are the
signature updates with the older version.

If you have the paid version, some of the updates might interest you.

[Dustin]

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote in news:ises6m$mfs$1@news.albasani.net:

> I was referring to the *program* update which was the topic of this
> thread. Yes, you still need to get the *signature* updates to
> remain up to date. Since nothing in the new version (free or paid)
> has added new heuristics or schemes for better detection, all you
> need are the signature updates with the older version.

I'm going to try once more.. The "program" update, IS the ****ing engine.
Again, it's best you keep BOTH updated.

> If you have the paid version, some of the updates might interest
> you.

Idiot.. I used to work for the company.. but, **** it, you know more I
guess.




--
Why drink the water from my hand?
Contagious as you think I am
Just tilt my sun towards your domain
Your cup runneth over again

[VanguardLH]

Dustin wrote:

> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote in news:ises6m$mfs$1@news.albasani.net:
>
>> I was referring to the *program* update which was the topic of this
>> thread. Yes, you still need to get the *signature* updates to
>> remain up to date. Since nothing in the new version (free or paid)
>> has added new heuristics or schemes for better detection, all you
>> need are the signature updates with the older version.
>
> I'm going to try once more.. The "program" update, IS the ****ing engine.
> Again, it's best you keep BOTH updated.
>
>> If you have the paid version, some of the updates might interest
>> you.
>
> Idiot.. I used to work for the company.. but, **** it, you know more I
> guess.

Oh yes, Dustin, we are certainly convinced of your claimed expertise by
such a professional response. (rolls eyes) Oh, please, grant us your
shining expertise by pointing out just where MBAM points out what
changes were made to their *engine*. Yeah, I thought so.

I see you can't even figure out a legitimate right-id token for the MID
header that you chose to have Xnews generate for you.

[Dustin]

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote in news:ishouc$lj4$1@news.albasani.net:

> Dustin wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote in
>> news:ises6m$mfs$1@news.albasani.net:
>>
>>> I was referring to the *program* update which was the topic of
>>> this thread. Yes, you still need to get the *signature* updates
>>> to remain up to date. Since nothing in the new version (free or
>>> paid) has added new heuristics or schemes for better detection,
>>> all you need are the signature updates with the older version.
>>
>> I'm going to try once more.. The "program" update, IS the ****ing
>> engine. Again, it's best you keep BOTH updated.
>>
>>> If you have the paid version, some of the updates might interest
>>> you.
>>
>> Idiot.. I used to work for the company.. but, **** it, you know
>> more I guess.
>
> Oh yes, Dustin, we are certainly convinced of your claimed expertise
> by such a professional response. (rolls eyes) Oh, please, grant us
> your shining expertise by pointing out just where MBAM points out
> what changes were made to their *engine*. Yeah, I thought so.

Claimed expertise? Are you saying you don't believe I worked for the
company and was a malware researcher for them? Please clarify.

MBAM isn't going to document every change made since last version, it's
*never* done so.

> I see you can't even figure out a legitimate right-id token for the
> MID header that you chose to have Xnews generate for you.

While I accept the fact you tried to insult me, the hex editing done to
the executable is quite deliberate, thanks. It's been modified in this
fashion for sometime now. I believe (yes, I did) I made a post
detailing where the bytes were to change the default information. As
Xnews would have originally put the WAN side IP there instead.

Any more smartass remarks you want to make?




--
Why drink the water from my hand?
Contagious as you think I am
Just tilt my sun towards your domain
Your cup runneth over again

[VanguardLH]

Dustin wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> Dustin wrote:
>>
>>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was referring to the *program* update which was the topic of
>>>> this thread. Yes, you still need to get the *signature* updates
>>>> to remain up to date. Since nothing in the new version (free or
>>>> paid) has added new heuristics or schemes for better detection,
>>>> all you need are the signature updates with the older version.
>>>
>>> I'm going to try once more.. The "program" update, IS the ****ing
>>> engine. Again, it's best you keep BOTH updated.
>>>
>>>> If you have the paid version, some of the updates might interest
>>>> you.
>>>
>>> Idiot.. I used to work for the company.. but, **** it, you know
>>> more I guess.
>>
>> Oh yes, Dustin, we are certainly convinced of your claimed expertise
>> by such a professional response. (rolls eyes) Oh, please, grant us
>> your shining expertise by pointing out just where MBAM points out
>> what changes were made to their *engine*. Yeah, I thought so.
>
> Claimed expertise? Are you saying you don't believe I worked for the
> company and was a malware researcher for them? Please clarify.

Ass, ****ing, idiot, **** it, and smartass. And who said that? You
really thought that attitude would lend an air of credibility to your
responses?

I was sarcastic only after your peurile retort. I never attacked you or
the product. Yet you chose to devolve into a troll. When you act like
one, don't expect anyone to believe your claimed expertise. If you
haven't noticed yet, sarcasm is more effective than vulgarities.

Sales people also probably work at MBAM and it's common knowledge
(amongst IT, dev, and QA folks) that sales folks don't know well the
products that they sell. You could've been a janitor there. You
might've worked in the human resources department, as a secretary, or
workstation setup and maintenance. No one here has access to their
employee records. You go ahead and claim whatever you want but your
prose belies your implied claim.

> MBAM isn't going to document every change made since last version, it's
> *never* done so.

So you really don't know that there was a change in the engine, its
algorithms, its heuristics, or any of its detection mechanisms. You're
just guessing or hoping but claiming that you know the program update is
a necessity. You don't know but you insult anyone that contests your
unfounded and unproven claim. Oh yes, you are quite the professional,
Dustin, uh huh, sure. (There's that sarcasm again warranted by the
prose that you chose to use in your replies).

>> I see you can't even figure out a legitimate right-id token for the
>> MID header that you chose to have Xnews generate for you.
>
> While I accept the fact you tried to insult me, the hex editing done to
> the executable is quite deliberate, thanks. It's been modified in this
> fashion for sometime now. I believe (yes, I did) I made a post
> detailing where the bytes were to change the default information. As
> Xnews would have originally put the WAN side IP there instead.
>
> Any more smartass remarks you want to make?

And while making those hex edits, you must be claiming that the data
block inside the executable for the MID value wasn't large enough to
enter a valid right-id token in the generated MID header. That's odd as
I've seen others posting with rather long right-id tokens in their MID
header that are also using Xnews. Wow, all that expertise having to hex
edit a file instead of modifying the user-editable configuration
settings prompted on the first run of Xnews (e.g., the IDtoken),
editable via the setup dialog (Ctrl+F1), or by editing the xnews.ini
file.

Other Xnews users probably just modify the settings under the "[ID]" or
[Compose] sections in the xnews.ini file. Go into the setup dialog
(Ctrl+F1) and just edit the form field to enter the value for IDtoken
under the Identities tab. I did a quick install just to test this.
When I hit Ctrl+F1, Identities tab, and entered in "news.mydomain.com",
the value stored for IDtoken in xnews.ini was "newsmydomaincom" (the
periods got removed). I also found out about the fqdn value that you
can specify under the [Compose] section of the xnews.ini file that uses
your fully qualified domain name in the MID header (see
http://www.geocities.ws/d4vidb/x_setup12.html#fqdn). The setup dialog
(Ctrl+F1) shows many user-configurable settings but not all of them that
can be defined inside of xnews.ini. There are some examples at
http://twovoyagers.com/blinkynet.net...i_samples.html of
xnews.ini that also show the use of the fqdn parameter under the
[Compose] section. The sparse manual at the newsguy site really sucks.
I don't even use XNews and yet I could search around to find info on the
IDtoken and fqdn values.

For my reply which neither attacked MBAM (and perhaps indirectly at you
because of your claimed prior unprovable affiliation with MBAM) nor
attacked you directly, you sure had a violent reaction to my post. I
have to wonder with such an oversensitive ego if perhaps a moderated
web-based forum might not better suit you. However, the forum moderator
would've end up deleting your posts so unmoderated Usenet is where your
posts can survive.

[Buffalo]

VanguardLH wrote:

Please take your hate and vindictiveness elsewhere.
Buffalo

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

Buffalo wrote:
> VanguardLH wrote:
>
> Please take your hate and vindictiveness elsewhere.

Please show some compassion. He's one of those pompous butt****s who is
compelled to use $5 words he is nonetheless unable to spell (e.g.,
peurile for puerile in "I was sarcastic only after your peurile
retort.", even though "childish" would have been more than adequate to
the purpose). It has been obvious for some time that his rage is so
overwhelming, he simply cannot forbear to lash out at his betters.

Poor fellow. It's enough to make one weep.

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

VanguardLH wrote:
> Dustin wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>> Dustin wrote:
>>>
>>>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I was referring to the *program* update which was the topic of
>>>>> this thread. Yes, you still need to get the *signature* updates
>>>>> to remain up to date. Since nothing in the new version (free or
>>>>> paid) has added new heuristics or schemes for better detection,
>>>>> all you need are the signature updates with the older version.
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to try once more.. The "program" update, IS the ****ing
>>>> engine. Again, it's best you keep BOTH updated.
>>>>
>>>>> If you have the paid version, some of the updates might interest
>>>>> you.
>>>>
>>>> Idiot.. I used to work for the company.. but, **** it, you know
>>>> more I guess.
>>>
>>> Oh yes, Dustin, we are certainly convinced of your claimed expertise
>>> by such a professional response. (rolls eyes) Oh, please, grant us
>>> your shining expertise by pointing out just where MBAM points out
>>> what changes were made to their *engine*. Yeah, I thought so.
>>
>> Claimed expertise? Are you saying you don't believe I worked for the
>> company and was a malware researcher for them? Please clarify.
>
> Ass, ****ing, idiot, **** it, and smartass. And who said that? You
> really thought that attitude would lend an air of credibility to your
> responses?
>
> I was sarcastic only after your peurile retort. I never attacked you
> or the product. Yet you chose to devolve into a troll. When you act
> like one, don't expect anyone to believe your claimed expertise. If
> you haven't noticed yet, sarcasm is more effective than vulgarities.
>
> Sales people also probably work at MBAM and it's common knowledge
> (amongst IT, dev, and QA folks) that sales folks don't know well the
> products that they sell. You could've been a janitor there. You
> might've worked in the human resources department, as a secretary, or
> workstation setup and maintenance. No one here has access to their
> employee records. You go ahead and claim whatever you want but your
> prose belies your implied claim.
>
>> MBAM isn't going to document every change made since last version,
>> it's *never* done so.
>
> So you really don't know that there was a change in the engine, its
> algorithms, its heuristics, or any of its detection mechanisms.
> You're just guessing or hoping but claiming that you know the program
> update is a necessity. You don't know but you insult anyone that
> contests your unfounded and unproven claim. Oh yes, you are quite
> the professional, Dustin, uh huh, sure. (There's that sarcasm again
> warranted by the prose that you chose to use in your replies).

His prose and his professionalism or the alleged lack thereof have
nothing to do with the fact that he is right and you are wrong.

Put another way, you may not like his language or the way he addresses
you, but your mile-a-minute commission of logical fallacies does not
obfuscate the salient fact that he is correct in his assessment and you
are a moron.

<snipped additional Vanguard blather and logic errors>

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
> Buffalo wrote:
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>> Please take your hate and vindictiveness elsewhere.
>
> Please show some compassion. He's one of those pompous butt****s who
> is compelled to use $5 words he is nonetheless unable to spell (e.g.,
> peurile for puerile in "I was sarcastic only after your peurile
> retort.", even though "childish" would have been more than adequate to
> the purpose). It has been obvious for some time that his rage is so
> overwhelming, he simply cannot forbear to lash out at his betters.
>
> Poor fellow. It's enough to make one weep.

Addendum:

I think I have its sex wrong. If I'm not mistaken, Vanguard is the
poster formerly known as "Margolotta" (or maybe it was "Margoletta") who
was formerly known as...hmmmph...I can't remember, although I do believe
that back in the day when Kadaitcha was keeping up his hilarious cast of
characters from 24hs.hd, she had her own page.