Spyblaster on Win 7

[Aardvark]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:54:50 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:

> Aardvark wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 07:21:42 -0500, David H. Lipman wrote:
> [....]
>> I run Klamav on my LAMP (and other applications) server here.
>> Basically,
>> just for the hell of it, but generally in case someone running Windoze
>> connects to it..
>
> Translation: I'm computer sto0pid.
>
> Perhaps you really mean Clamav? http://www.clamav.net/lang/en/
>

No, ****. I mean Klamav.

>--
> Dopey!

Your sig suits you, ****.



--
"And thus I clothe my naked villany
With odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ,
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil."
King Richard III (I, iii, 336-338)

[Bullwinkle.]

If you could get some, you would not talk about it so much.

Getting theurge to build more bombs and kill UK troops?


"Aardvark" <aardvark@youllnever.know> wrote in message
news:jb5v2l$vi1$6@dont-email.me...

, ****.

[~BD~]

Bullwinkle. wrote:
> If you could get some, you would not talk about it so much.
>
> Getting the urge to build more bombs and kill UK troops?

Why do you hang on its every word? <shakes head>

[FromTheRafters]

~BD~ wrote:
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>> "~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:jb33aa$vs2$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Foldes professes to be a computer guru and an ex-Microsoft MVP.
>>>>> He'd surely be aware of what you claim - you can't both be right!
>>>>
>>>> You are Trolling again BD
>>>
>>> No - not at all!
>>>
>>> *You* said "The 2 other servers which I use for home use along with the
>>> family I have SpywareBlaster, SAS, Malwarebytes and Emisoft installed
>>> and running and those 2 machines are basically for home use and I really
>>> do not need anything else on it."
>>>
>>> *David Lipman* said ""Browsing" that can get a user into trouble on a
>>> workstation should *never* be done on a server platform ..."
>>>
>>> The two statements are incongruous. <shrug>
>>
>> Not really. The term "server" can refer both to the software and to the
>> role of the machine.
>
>
> I have read here and do understand what you say, FTR.
> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/server.html
>
> Maybe you can help me understand why it is apparently OK to protect a
> 'home' server but unnecessary to protect what PF calls a 'work' server?

What (and how many) new programs are you likely going to run?

> We can chat on scorched-earth rather than here if you would prefer that.

Nope, and I told everyone why.

[~BD~]

FromTheRafters wrote:
> ~BD~ wrote:
>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>>> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>>> "~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
>>>>> news:jb33aa$vs2$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Foldes professes to be a computer guru and an ex-Microsoft MVP.
>>>>>> He'd surely be aware of what you claim - you can't both be right!
>>>>>
>>>>> You are Trolling again BD
>>>>
>>>> No - not at all!
>>>>
>>>> *You* said "The 2 other servers which I use for home use along with the
>>>> family I have SpywareBlaster, SAS, Malwarebytes and Emisoft installed
>>>> and running and those 2 machines are basically for home use and I
>>>> really
>>>> do not need anything else on it."
>>>>
>>>> *David Lipman* said ""Browsing" that can get a user into trouble on a
>>>> workstation should *never* be done on a server platform ..."
>>>>
>>>> The two statements are incongruous. <shrug>
>>>
>>> Not really. The term "server" can refer both to the software and to the
>>> role of the machine.
>>
>>
>> I have read here and do understand what you say, FTR.
>> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/server.html
>>
>> Maybe you can help me understand why it is apparently OK to protect a
>> 'home' server but unnecessary to protect what PF calls a 'work' server?
>
> What (and how many) new programs are you likely going to run?

None envisaged!

>> We can chat on scorched-earth rather than here if you would prefer that.
>
> Nope, and I told everyone why.

OK. Your choice!

Btw, here's another piccie for you, from a different angle:-

http://i42.tinypic.com/ezn4vm.jpg

[FromTheRafters]

~BD~ wrote:
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>>>> "~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:jb33aa$vs2$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter Foldes professes to be a computer guru and an ex-Microsoft
>>>>>>> MVP.
>>>>>>> He'd surely be aware of what you claim - you can't both be right!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are Trolling again BD
>>>>>
>>>>> No - not at all!
>>>>>
>>>>> *You* said "The 2 other servers which I use for home use along with
>>>>> the
>>>>> family I have SpywareBlaster, SAS, Malwarebytes and Emisoft installed
>>>>> and running and those 2 machines are basically for home use and I
>>>>> really
>>>>> do not need anything else on it."
>>>>>
>>>>> *David Lipman* said ""Browsing" that can get a user into trouble on a
>>>>> workstation should *never* be done on a server platform ..."
>>>>>
>>>>> The two statements are incongruous. <shrug>
>>>>
>>>> Not really. The term "server" can refer both to the software and to the
>>>> role of the machine.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have read here and do understand what you say, FTR.
>>> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/server.html
>>>
>>> Maybe you can help me understand why it is apparently OK to protect a
>>> 'home' server but unnecessary to protect what PF calls a 'work' server?
>>
>> What (and how many) new programs are you likely going to run?
>
> None envisaged!

The less new programs you add to a system, the less you need to protect
it from.

>>> We can chat on scorched-earth rather than here if you would prefer that.
>>
>> Nope, and I told everyone why.
>
> OK. Your choice!

Not really.

> Btw, here's another piccie for you, from a different angle:-
>
> http://i42.tinypic.com/ezn4vm.jpg

Nice photo.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "FromTheRafters" <erratic@nomail.afraid.org>

>>>>>
>>>>> Not really. The term "server" can refer both to the software and to the
>>>>> role of the machine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have read here and do understand what you say, FTR.
>>>> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/server.html
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you can help me understand why it is apparently OK to protect a
>>>> 'home' server but unnecessary to protect what PF calls a 'work' server?
>>>
>>> What (and how many) new programs are you likely going to run?
>>
>> None envisaged!
>
> The less new programs you add to a system, the less you need to protect it from.
> >

< snip >

That's a questionable statement.

The need to protect is not a function of the type and or number of programs installed but
rather it is based uopon the role it plays and the "data" that is stored.

I could have zero programs added to the systems but it could have proprietary data such as
personnel records, PII, or company insider information.

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[FromTheRafters]

David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "FromTheRafters"<erratic@nomail.afraid.org>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not really. The term "server" can refer both to the software and to the
>>>>>> role of the machine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have read here and do understand what you say, FTR.
>>>>> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/server.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you can help me understand why it is apparently OK to protect a
>>>>> 'home' server but unnecessary to protect what PF calls a 'work' server?
>>>>
>>>> What (and how many) new programs are you likely going to run?
>>>
>>> None envisaged!
>>
>> The less new programs you add to a system, the less you need to protect it from.
>>>
>
> < snip>
>
> That's a questionable statement.
>
> The need to protect is not a function of the type and or number of programs installed but
> rather it is based uopon the role it plays and the "data" that is stored.
>
> I could have zero programs added to the systems but it could have proprietary data such as
> personnel records, PII, or company insider information.
>
Spyware won't install without running a program on the system. You won't
be running any trojans on a machine that you can't or won't be adding
any programs to. There is much less exposure to classic trojans on a
machine with no monitor or keyboard. This is like a software retriction
policy on steroids.

Sure, you may have a greater need to protect the data, but you don't
need to protect a machine like that from spyware infestations the same
as you would for an end-user desktop machine where the user is allowed
to execute programs from the web.

Risk assessment considers these factors and more, but I was only talking
about protecting the machine - specifically from spyware and not
considering any particular value of data being processed by the server.

Not only will not adding new programs improve security from the classic
trojan vector aspect, but less lines of code means less likelihood of
exploitable software flaws leading to the software exploit ingress
vector malware.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "FromTheRafters" <erratic@nomail.afraid.org>

> David H. Lipman wrote:
>> From: "FromTheRafters"<erratic@nomail.afraid.org>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not really. The term "server" can refer both to the software and to the
>>>>>>> role of the machine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have read here and do understand what you say, FTR.
>>>>>> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/server.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe you can help me understand why it is apparently OK to protect a
>>>>>> 'home' server but unnecessary to protect what PF calls a 'work' server?
>>>>>
>>>>> What (and how many) new programs are you likely going to run?
>>>>
>>>> None envisaged!
>>>
>>> The less new programs you add to a system, the less you need to protect it from.
>>>>
>>
>> < snip>
>>
>> That's a questionable statement.
>>
>> The need to protect is not a function of the type and or number of programs installed
>> but
>> rather it is based uopon the role it plays and the "data" that is stored.
>>
>> I could have zero programs added to the systems but it could have proprietary data such
>> as personnel records, PII, or company insider information.
>>
> Spyware won't install without running a program on the system. You won't be running any
> trojans on a machine that you can't or won't be adding any programs to. There is much
> less exposure to classic trojans on a machine with no monitor or keyboard. This is like
> a software retriction policy on steroids.
>
> Sure, you may have a greater need to protect the data, but you don't need to protect a
> machine like that from spyware infestations the same as you would for an end-user
> desktop machine where the user is allowed to execute programs from the web.
>
> Risk assessment considers these factors and more, but I was only talking about
> protecting the machine - specifically from spyware and not considering any particular
> value of data being processed by the server.
>
> Not only will not adding new programs improve security from the classic trojan vector
> aspect, but less lines of code means less likelihood of exploitable software flaws
> leading to the software exploit ingress vector malware.

I totally disagree. Risk assessment is both a function of what is installed on the
machine and the need to keep the data secured. The more crucial the data the greater the
risk and thus the greater the need to protect the data. The vector isn't the software
that's installed, its a combinational Social Engineering and Vulnerability/exploitation
(and a smidgeon of the Insider Threat). By definition spyware means the intent of data
exfiltration. I have been in high valued targeted profile enclave, dealt with
vulnerability assesment software such as eEye Retina and Harris Stat, Infortmation
Assurance audits, yada, yada... You need to protect ALL interconnected assets. All you
need is one successful trageted exploitation such as through spear phishing. Not adding
additional software is only part of the equation and if you think in that limited scope
you are missing the big picture and thus increase risk.

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[Dustin]

~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in news:jb4n96$8ah$1@dont-email.me:

> David H. Lipman wrote:
>> From: "~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org>
>>
>> | Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>> "~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:jb33aa$vs2$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Foldes professes to be a computer guru and an ex-Microsoft MVP.
>>>>> He'd surely be aware of what you claim - you can't both be right!
>>>>
>>>> You are Trolling again BD
>> |
>> | No - not at all!
>> |
>> | *You* said "The 2 other servers which I use for home use along with
the
>> | family I have SpywareBlaster, SAS, Malwarebytes and Emisoft installed
>> | and running and those 2 machines are basically for home use and I
really
>> | do not need anything else on it."
>> |
>> | *David Lipman* said ""Browsing" that can get a user into trouble on a
>> | workstation should *never* be done on a server platform ..."
>> |
>> | The two statements are incongruous. <shrug>
>>
>> You surely lack comprehension skills.
>
> Sometimes - especially when the 'teacher' is not providing a clear
> explanation.

You seem to be the only student falling behind. Perhaps it's not so much
the teacher as the pupil.

>> The operating text in what Peter posted was... "The 2 other servers
>> which _I use for home_..." says volumes.
>
> I understand that different servers do different jobs, from serving
> e-mail and video to protecting internal networks and hosting Web sites.

And yet, you still missed that important distinction Peter wrote above.

> DHL did not differentiate when he made this statement:-

Actually, they both did when they specified the OS in use. The particular
OS flavors Peter mentioned are "server" editions, Not workstation like w2k,
XP, Vista and Windows 7.

> One never can tell the skill level of folk reading here! Never assume,
> check!

Learn to use google. Learn to read. Simple.


--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and
the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts