Clarification of a few points.

[Aardvark]

Irrelevant NG snecked.


On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 19:31:08 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:

> "~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.

BD wants their names and email addresses so he can check them out and/or
stalk them.

Hop to it!



--
"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.”

[Dustin]

Aardvark <aardvark@youllnever.know> wrote in
news:ivap6f$er5$3@dont-email.me:

> BD wants their names and email addresses so he can check them out
> and/or stalk them.

He should tend to his own home before he invites himself to others.



--
(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

[Aardvark]

On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 23:46:37 +0000, Dustin wrote:

> Aardvark <aardvark@youllnever.know> wrote in
> news:ivap6f$er5$3@dont-email.me:
>
>> BD wants their names and email addresses so he can check them out
>> and/or stalk them.
>
> He should tend to his own home before he invites himself to others.

LOL



--
"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.”

[~BD~]

Dustin wrote:
> Aardvark<aardvark@youllnever.know> wrote in
> news:ivap6f$er5$3@dont-email.me:
>
>> BD wants their names and email addresses so he can check them out
>> and/or stalk them.
>
> He should tend to his own home before he invites himself to others.
>
>
>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43678351...ence-security/

*You* are a marked man, Dustin Cook

[~BD~]

Dustin wrote:
> ~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.

I'll display my ignorance again. I'm uncertain what you mean by
"somebody sends the executable in".

Has *any* AV company downloaded the /whole/ anti-malware programme, just
like any member of the public, onto a clean machine, run the programme
and then forensically examined said machine afterwards?

That's a rhetorical question really - it is impossible for you to know
the answer.

>> 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.

So you have said. Let's hope you are correct.

D.

[~BD~]

Dustin wrote:
> "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.


So why the need for this, Dustin?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43678351...ence-security/

Extract:

Most importantly, the Secret Service has been embedding agents and staff
at almost all levels of the federal government. The Secret Service has
thoroughly melded handling of what they call "cyber" investigations with
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other government agencies.

Secret Service agents are assigned on detail to (among others) the DHS'
National Cyber Security and Office of Infrastructure Protection
Divisions, DHS' Science and Technology Directorate, every individual FBI
joint terrorism task force, the FBI's National Cyber Investigative Joint
Task Force, the Treasury Department's Terrorist Finance and Financial
Crime and Financial Crime Enforcement Network sections, the DEA's
Special Operations Division, the Department of Justice's International
Organized Crime division, the CIA, EUROPOL and INTERPOL.

--
Dave - you never *really* know who is who on-line, do you?!! ;-)

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

~BD~ wrote:

> That's a rhetorical question really - it is impossible for you to
> know the answer.

Then why do you keep asking him?

--
-bts
-Leave technical subjects to the technically inclined

[~BD~]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> That's a rhetorical question really - it is impossible for you to
>> know the answer.
>
> Then why do you keep asking him?


This is a Usenet newsgroup. I may ask whatever I wish whenever I wish -
you know that.

I persist in the remote hope that someone else might eventually grasp
the nettle and provide a /satisfactory/ answer - instead of Dustin
simply advising that /he/ has checked it, so it /must/ be OK.

If the software was available on a CD/DVD in Computerworld or suchlike,
I'd never entertain the thought that an anti-malware programme might not
be all that it seems.

Those that download software on-line are, as you will be well aware,
highly vulnerable to exploitation. They will seek out items which they
hope will help then 'clean' their computers when they become slow or
throw up pop-ups all the time. These 'average' users will have no clue
what they are *actually* installing onto their machines and, as long as
the computer *appears* to work normally again after usage of same,
they'll certainly not explore further to determine if something nasty
has been left installed thereon.

Can you understand where I'm coming from on this? Millions of computers
remain infected. The bad guys really are ahead of the game!

Cross-posted to alt.comp.freeware for a wider audience. (It is 'allowed'!)

So, I repeat my question yet again. 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.

HTH

--
Dave

[Aardvark]

IRRELEVANT NG SNECKED

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 08:10:37 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

> Dustin wrote:

>> I've done so, I already told you it's clean.
>
> So you have said. Let's hope you are correct.

Translation: I don't care what anyone highly experienced in these things
says, I want to smear MBAM using my best slimy innuendo and that's
exactly what I'll do.



--
"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.”

[~BD~]

Aardvark wrote:
> IRRELEVANT NG SNECKED

Not irrelevant to me. Reinstated.

> Translation: I don't care what anyone highly experienced in these things
> says, I want to smear MBAM using my best slimy innuendo and that's
> exactly what I'll do.


Why have you excluded SuperAntiSpyware from your comment.

http://www.superantispyware.com/

Exactly the same premise applies.

Well - Nearly! CD available on *this* product!

http://www.superantispyware.com/shop...add&sku=SAS000

Perhaps I've missed it. Can you, or anyone, advise where I can obtain
Malwarebytes software on a CD/DVD?

--
Dave - still seeking the *truth*!