Dustin Cook wrote:
> "Jenn"<nope@nowayatno.howanyday> wrote in
> news:iv8bdg$41n$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> Dustin wrote:
>>> "Jenn"<nope@nowayatno.howanyday> wrote in
>>> news:iv5ig4$9qd$1@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> ... just curious .. who's the 3rd party independent analysis done
>>>> by?
>>
>>
>>> I'm not going to play semantics. What I said stands.
>>
>> You said it .. I was just asking who you were talking about...
>> don't you know?
>
> Yep. I know. Jenn, the Malwarebytes software is routinely tested by virus
> scanners when people submit the executable; Like you did with David
> Lipmans program. That is independent, 3rd party. [g] A clean bill of
> health is always provided.


That answer is inadequate and does not answer the original question.

<q/p>

Rootkit detection is difficult because a rootkit may be able to subvert
the software that is intended to find it. Detection methods include
using an alternate, trusted operating system; behavioral-based methods;
signature scanning; difference scanning; and memory dump analysis.
Removal can be complicated or practically impossible, especially in
cases where the rootkit resides in the kernel; reinstallation of the
operating system may be the only alternative.

<q>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootkit

Do you dispute this, Dustin?

So, 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.