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.