> Not if you have a decent backup. At any rate, this is not a matter of
> opinions, but simple scientific facts.
Your advice is bogus, at best. If this is all you have to offer perhaps
shutting up would be better.
> Not if you have a decent backup. At any rate, this is not a matter of
> opinions, but simple scientific facts.
Your advice is bogus, at best. If this is all you have to offer perhaps
shutting up would be better.
Bill Kearney wrote:
>> Not if you have a decent backup. At any rate, this is not a matter of
>> opinions, but simple scientific facts.
>
> Your advice is bogus, at best.
Calling trivial facts bogus is the reason why you should better shut up.
G. Morgan wrote:
> [alt.internet.wireless] removed from x-post
>
> Sebastian G. wrote:
>
>>> Ahh Sebastian, I've read your stuff. Your the one who thinks a clean
>>> re-install is the only way to remove crapware, eh?
>>
>> Not if you have a decent backup. At any rate, this is not a matter of
>> opinions, but simple scientific facts.
>
> Well I would have to argue that it *is* a matter of opinion. I have
> personally resurrected many a machine from the brink of uselessness by
> applying (freeware) solutions.
No, you didn't. In fact, it's likely that they're still compromised.
> The one-two punch of Adaware, and SpyBot S&D
> is often all it takes to clean an infected PC.
Gotta laugh even more. These tools are absolutely useless, since even at
perfectly clean machines they're claiming a lot of nonsense. How should they
even provide any useful information about a system that actively lies to them?
On Wed, 21 May 2008 01:48:40 +0200, Sebastian G. wrote:
> G. Morgan wrote:
>
>> [alt.internet.wireless] removed from x-post
>>
>> Sebastian G. wrote:
>>
>>>> Ahh Sebastian, I've read your stuff. Your the one who thinks a clean
>>>> re-install is the only way to remove crapware, eh?
>>>
>>> Not if you have a decent backup. At any rate, this is not a matter of
>>> opinions, but simple scientific facts.
>>
>> Well I would have to argue that it *is* a matter of opinion. I have
>> personally resurrected many a machine from the brink of uselessness by
>> applying (freeware) solutions.
>
> No, you didn't. In fact, it's likely that they're still compromised.
>
>> The one-two punch of Adaware, and SpyBot S&D
>> is often all it takes to clean an infected PC.
>
> Gotta laugh even more. These tools are absolutely useless, since even at
> perfectly clean machines they're claiming a lot of nonsense. How should they
> even provide any useful information about a system that actively lies to them?
Now, even if a certain Sebastian Gottschalk from .de is spewing snipes
proclaiming that using David's Multi-AV to clean operating systems isn't is
accord with (his) scientific facts...the pragmatic/realistic proof is in
the pudding. Users living in the Islands, Booneys, Bush, Outback, Beyond
the Black Stump etc. don't need your claptrap and don't care for your
condescending manner. As a frequent lurker in various pertinent newsgroups,
I haven't seen one post where David's Multi-AV wasn't helpful and
beneficial.
So, Sebastian Gottschalk of .de, go and stick your scientific facts in one
of your bodily cavities, save us from your snipes and keep your
grandiosities within the circle of your associates in the sophisticated
milieu of Berlin. (You are a prime example of German arrogance but your
like minded buckos wouldn't know, now would they?).
Kayman wrote:
> isn't is accord with (his) scientific facts...
^^^^^
Proof that you're an idiot.
> the pragmatic/realistic proof is in the pudding.
There is none. You cannot proof that you've cleaned the system just by the
absence of obvious signs.
> I haven't seen one post where David's Multi-AV wasn't helpful and
> beneficial.
Of course, since those fools don't understand the meaning of system
integrity. It was helpful insofar that it seemed to cure the symptoms, but
it never restored the system to a well-defined state, leaving all future
work unreliable and potentially compromised.
G. Morgan wrote:
> Sebastian G. wrote:
>
>>> Well I would have to argue that it *is* a matter of opinion. I have
>>> personally resurrected many a machine from the brink of uselessness by
>>> applying (freeware) solutions.
>>
>> No, you didn't. In fact, it's likely that they're still compromised.
>
> Yes, I did. No they're not.
Trivial counter-proof of your statement: Universal trojan horses exist.
>> These tools are absolutely useless, since even at
>> perfectly clean machines they're claiming a lot of nonsense. How should they
>> even provide any useful information about a system that actively lies to them?
>
> That's not been my experience. I've run both on brand new images of XP SP2 &
> 3 and got -zero- false positives.
Question: What's the difference between a brand new image and a well secured
and hardened system?
> So, being the "scientist" you are I'm sure you will now be offering the proof
> of your hypothesis. I will be waiting.
Trivial: Just change
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\Tcpip\Parameters\DataBasePath
and it will complain that something isn't right.
G. Morgan wrote:
> Universal Trojans? What the heck are you on about now? I said AA and SBS&D
> could (and does) remove a lot of malware making the system clean again.
And if the malware is an universal trojan horse, the system will remain
infected, albeit appearing clean. So stop claiming the contrary. Most
malware implementations are universal trojan horses.
> A well hardened system would be that image + a good A/V w/updates and a
> firewall running before the system becomes a node on the (Inter)network.
Bull****. Not just that something like "good A/V" doesn't exist (both by
design and by availability), it's far away from being a security
improvement, and even further away from hardening.
But once again: I have setup a system that is provably clean, but not in a
fresh state. I have AdAware and Sypbot S&D run over it, and it claimed
multiple infections and security issues, which were provably nonsense. Your
example of how it behaves on a fresh systems doesn't disprove my claims at all.
>> Trivial: Just change
>> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\Tcpip\Parameters\DataBasePath
>> and it will complain that something isn't right.
>
> Of course a good scanner is going to detect a change in the location of HOSTS,
> I fully expect it to.
Nonsense. HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE is read-only to normal users, so this change
must have been applied by an administrator.
In fact, it was done exactly so for a better management of ACLs, grouping
together various relevant files for which one specifically limits access to
NT-AUTHORITY\SYSTEM and 'named' only.
And this was only one example. It also claims some group policy settings
(which improve security) as issues, noises about cookies with a DOMAIN
attribute (albeit the webbrowser is configured to not care about it), and
even complains about some known good software (like FlashGet).
Or did you ever try the "immunization" function? It spams the registry full
of useless CLSIDs, fails to do so on HKLM, claims success, then reports
incompleteness on next run, and tries again. WTF?
Not gonna mention AdAware. One does need a test machine just to get around
the broken installer (which tries to write some temporary files to
%SystemRoot%\system32), and then it presents you with an almost empty GUI
(since it tries to use a MSHTML style GUI without even checking if rendering
pictures is active), and then pulls of **** similar to Sypbot S&D.
> Now, what about your claim that SBS&D and Ad aware detect false positives on a
> brand new XP install?
This claim is merely a fiction of yours, or your inability to read and
understand.
Aside from that, why can't it detect the most obvious security issues of
such a fresh install?
On Wed, 21 May 2008 03:48:01 +0200, Sebastian G. wrote:
> Kayman wrote:
>
>> isn't is accord with (his) scientific facts...
>
> ^^^^^
> Proof that you're an idiot.
Ah, So typical and predictable. You must be running out of arguments.
>> the pragmatic/realistic proof is in the pudding.
>
> There is none. You cannot proof that you've cleaned the system just by the
> absence of obvious signs.
>
Sure, yadda, yadda, yawn.
>
>> I haven't seen one post where David's Multi-AV wasn't helpful and
>> beneficial.
>
> Of course, since those fools don't understand the meaning of system
> integrity.
I only wish you'd meet some of them Outback "fools" face to face...
> It was helpful insofar that it seemed to cure the symptoms, but
> it never restored the system to a well-defined state, leaving all future
> work unreliable and potentially compromised.
Now we know. To quote H.L.Mencken:"Puritanism: The haunting fear that
someone, somewhere, may be happy."
Kayman wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 03:48:01 +0200, Sebastian G. wrote:
>
>> Kayman wrote:
>>
>>> isn't is accord with (his) scientific facts...
>> ^^^^^
>> Proof that you're an idiot.
>
> Ah, So typical and predictable. You must be running out of arguments.
Another proof that you're an idiot. You're claiming trivial scientific facts
as solely my facts, which is exactly your lack of arguments.
>> There is none. You cannot proof that you've cleaned the system just by the
>> absence of obvious signs.
>>
> Sure, yadda, yadda, yawn.
Yet another proof that you're lacking arguments.
>> Of course, since those fools don't understand the meaning of system
>> integrity.
>
> I only wish you'd meet some of them Outback "fools" face to face...
I do. And interestingly most of them know what they're doing wrong, and
typically beg for the consequences not happening.
>> It was helpful insofar that it seemed to cure the symptoms, but
>> it never restored the system to a well-defined state, leaving all future
>> work unreliable and potentially compromised.
>
> Now we know. To quote H.L.Mencken:"Puritanism: The haunting fear that
> someone, somewhere, may be happy."
If you would bother to understand what an universal trojan horse is (and
feel ashame that you ever dared operating a computer without the most basic
knowledge), then you might get a clue where to place reasonable assumptions.
A compromised system, by definition, remains compromised until it returns
into a well-defined state. Changing the state based on assumptions about the
current state can't achieve that. But well, that's just trivial math...
On Mon, 19 May 2008 08:55:18 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
> Oh, so the "problem" wasn't what you claimed it to be in your first
> post.
Why so suspicious.
Actually, in hindsight, I wish I knew how programs figure out exactly who
is running them. This Spector program, which I apparently don't have on my
system based on the help here, apparently wires back home who is using it.
How does it do that? (Is this a right group to ask that question?)
It's a privacy spying computer security internet issue.
I'm assuming it keys off the MAC ID, which can easily be changed.
In general, how does a program (such as Spector) know EXACTLY who is using
it and on what computer? Is it the MAC ID or something else that it keys
off of?
D
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote