On 07/07/2011 02:52, Dustin wrote:
> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in
> news:iv2okl$oin$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 06/07/2011 23:29, Dustin wrote:
>>> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in
>>> news:iv2mua$euf$1@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>>> You specifically asked if malwarebytes would install a rootkit
>>>>> while telling the user everything is okay.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You said you had checked to see if it did so.
>>>
>>> I said I took the program apart to crack it; the side effect of my
>>> analysis for the cracking showed that it only does as it claims to
>>> do, nothing else.
>>>
>>>> *Why* did you check, Dustin?
>>>
>>> I wanted it for free and didn't want to use a keygen. I told you
>>> that already.
>>
>> That seems strange. *Anyone* may have it *for free* - can't they?
>
> Nothing strange about it. As you well know, although you're not saying,
> the free version doesn't include the scheduler nor the resident
> protection module. Those you're supposed to pay for.
And you feel it reasonable that you obtained it *without* paying? Why
so? Wouldn't your ex-employer consider your action *stealing*?
>> Here's the URL:
>> http://www.malwarebytes.org/products/malwarebytes_free
>
> Take a closer look.
Not sure what point you are trying to make, Dustin. I am aware that
there are two versions, one of which is free.
>>> Thanks for confirming that you did indeed claim malwarebytes was
>>> doing something bad tho. I've sent this to one of my contacts, and
>>> I will send them your contact information too. Just because you
>>> live in the UK doesn't mean they have no options with regard to
>>> your slandering a good product and trying to harm their reputation
>>> as a good company with a legitimate product.
>>
>> No one has slandered anyone, Dustin.
>
> Call it what you will, fact is, you've claimed malwarebytes might do
> something nasty. You pick on them because they felt the need to
> rightfully remove you from the forum, as they realized what a POS loser
> you are.
I've asked if such a cleaning programme *could* do something nasty.
You may be interested to learn that neither Symantec nor Kaspersky have
declined to communicate with BD. Oh, nor has Sophos!
>> However, I do believe it best for any doubts about software to be
>> raised publically. I'm guessing that few people will have the
>> technical ability to determine exactly what such software does when
>> it is installed on a computer - even a 'clean' one.
>
> That would be a bad guess on your part then. The skills I have are
> shared by many in the research field, on both sides of the fence. If
> malwarebytes contained something not mentioned on it's site or the docs
> that's harmful, it wouldn't get far before others like me, noticed and
> said something.
Now _you_ are making an assumption, Dustin. Which of these *many*
skilled folk has actually examined anti-malware software forensically?
> Some dip****s tried the same smear campaign against BugHunter. 6 years
> later, still no malicious code or acts found or shown.
I have never suspected BugHunter of being malicious in any way.
>> Who else, apart from you, Dustin, has given Malwarebytes and
>> SuperAntispyware a clean bill of health after forensic examination?
>
> I wasn't aware they *needed* a clean bill of health.
Folk *need* to know that software, only available on-line, which is
purported to have been designed to *help* people, *is* squeaky-clean.
I repeat my question. Which independent body has actually checked the
software in the manner I suggested earlier? i.e. Downloaded the software
onto a known clean computer and then forensically examined said machine.
D.
Reply With Quote
