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