~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in
news:iv3jo2$2dp$1@dont-email.me:

> 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*?

I reverse engineer software, David. I do it for my own private usage; but
on a technical point, you've got me on copyright infringement; not
stealing.

> Not sure what point you are trying to make, Dustin. I am aware that
> there are two versions, one of which is free.

Hence, the one I cracked obviously; wouldn't be the free version. Your
comment about "seems strange" is thus, trolling.

>> 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.

all the while, specifically naming malwarebytes for your "example". I
doubt it was just a coincidence.

> You may be interested to learn that neither Symantec nor Kaspersky
> have declined to communicate with BD. Oh, nor has Sophos!

They are very large companies by comparison. It's likely you just haven't
made the rounds in all the helpdesk callcenters. You intentionally
mislead people here, into thinking you are special. lol.

> Now _you_ are making an assumption, Dustin. Which of these *many*
> skilled folk has actually examined anti-malware software
> forensically?

I'm not making any assumptions. Haven't you learned yet? I won't tell you
something that isn't true, *unlike* yourself. I know some people birddog
me; they will for the rest of my time online. hehehe. If I ****up,
they'll nail me to a cross. I will not provide you any names nor software
packages examined which are antimalware apps or antivirus apps. Except to
say that many legitimate programs sometimes get submitted for analysis
via the same means you'd send a malware sample. I've seen everything from
autocad to notepad..

>> 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.

A bit pointless to do so, it has a clean track record. Indisputable.

> Folk *need* to know that software, only available on-line, which is
> purported to have been designed to *help* people, *is*
> squeaky-clean.

Well, David, a certain level of trust is required at this point. Either
you trust malwarebytes or you don't.

> 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.

**** Off, David.


--
(Hey) I keep on thinking that it's
(Hey) all done and all over now (whoa)
You keep on thinking you can save me save me
(Hey) My ship is sinking but it's
(Hey) all good and I can go down (whoa)
You've got me thinking that the party's all over