Perhaps the Crown holds your answer.
"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in message
news:naidnfOxXf5mnIXTnZ2dnUVZ8jidnZ2d@bt.com...
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.
"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in message
news:naidnfOxXf5mnIXTnZ2dnUVZ8jidnZ2d@bt.com...
> 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.
It seems adequate to me, and additionally there are people out there
who tear apart security related programs just to see what weaknesses
there are in them - "Little Willy" and Tegam comes to mind.
It is not at all likely that malicious activity will go unnoticed.
A trap door is more likely, but even that is not that likely.
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 08:19:50 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
> BD wrote:
>> That answer is inadequate and does not answer the original question.
>
> It seems adequate to me, and additionally there are people out there who
> tear apart security related programs just to see what weaknesses there
> are in them - "Little Willy" and Tegam comes to mind.
>
> It is not at all likely that malicious activity will go unnoticed.
>
> A trap door is more likely, but even that is not that likely.
No amount of logical explanation is likely to dislodge his 'hinky'. BD
and logic are anathema to one another.
--
"Those who do not make human beings the center of their concern soon
lose the capacity to make any ethical choices, for they willingly
sacrifice others in the name of the politically expedient and
practical." - Dwight Macdonald, “The Root Is Man.”
FromTheRafters wrote:
> It seems adequate to me, and additionally there are people out there
> who tear apart security related programs just to see what weaknesses
> there are in them - "Little Willy" and Tegam comes to mind.
>
> It is not at all likely that malicious activity will go unnoticed.
>
> A trap door is more likely, but even that is not that likely.
Forget *likely* - the question is "is it *possible*"
Has anybody actually /checked/?
Totally irrelevant NG snecked.
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 14:22:33 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> It seems adequate to me, and additionally there are people out there
>> who tear apart security related programs just to see what weaknesses
>> there are in them - "Little Willy" and Tegam comes to mind.
>>
>> It is not at all likely that malicious activity will go unnoticed.
>>
>> A trap door is more likely, but even that is not that likely.
>
> Forget *likely* - the question is "is it *possible*"
>
> Has anybody actually /checked/?
The ****ing possibilities become more irrelevant the lower the
likelihood, ****.
--
"Those who do not make human beings the center of their concern soon
lose the capacity to make any ethical choices, for they willingly
sacrifice others in the name of the politically expedient and
practical." - Dwight Macdonald, “The Root Is Man.”
You should try some.
Much better than the down low ass
you poke.
"Aardvark" <aardvark@youllnever.know> wrote in message
news:iv9kvu$bsj$3@dont-email.me...
, ****.
"Jenn" <nope@nowayatno.howanyday> wrote in
news:iv8k9s$e2e$1@dont-email.me:
> Dustin 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.
>
> I'm glad to hear that because I like using malwarebytes, myself. I
> just wonder if "The Net" scenario could actually happen.
Nope. As I said, 3rd party peer review keeps things like that on the
movie screen.
--
(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
~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in
news:naidnfOxXf5mnIXTnZ2dnUVZ8jidnZ2d@bt.com:
> 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.
That answer is more than sufficient. It answers the question, 100% on
point with no slime nor innuendo.
> Do you dispute this, Dustin?
>
> So, I repeat my question. Which independent body has actually
Your question has been asked, and answered twice. I checked it before I
worked for them; so I was independent then, AV companies check it every
single time somebody sends the executable in.
> Downloaded the software onto a known clean computer and then
> forensically examined said machine.
I've done so, I already told you it's clean.
--
(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
~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in news:AbKdnWn-
c4GEy4XTnZ2dnUVZ7rednZ2d@bt.com:
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> It seems adequate to me, and additionally there are people out there
>> who tear apart security related programs just to see what weaknesses
>> there are in them - "Little Willy" and Tegam comes to mind.
>>
>> It is not at all likely that malicious activity will go unnoticed.
>>
>> A trap door is more likely, but even that is not that likely.
>
> Forget *likely* - the question is "is it *possible*"
>
> Has anybody actually /checked/?
Yes, I have. Morgan lacks the required skills to check, hence is
questions related to spectorsoft. [g]
--
(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
"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in message
news:AbKdnWn-c4GEy4XTnZ2dnUVZ7rednZ2d@bt.com...
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> It seems adequate to me, and additionally there are people out there
>> who tear apart security related programs just to see what weaknesses
>> there are in them - "Little Willy" and Tegam comes to mind.
>>
>> It is not at all likely that malicious activity will go unnoticed.
>>
>> A trap door is more likely, but even that is not that likely.
>
> Forget *likely* - the question is "is it *possible*"
Of course it is, but not for long. Especially if it is doing something.
> Has anybody actually /checked/?
Yes, I'm sure somebody has.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote