AMUN wrote:
> I am very careful, and still every few weeks, something gets in that I
> did want.
I assume you meant "that I did not want." If this is the case, you
aren't being careful enough.
None of my computers, including from way back in the 8086 days, have
ever been infected with anything. This includes many versions of DOS,
OS/2, and Windows until two years ago.
--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:33:28 -0000, wasted wrote:
> Hi
>
> Any comparisons known that compare these two?
>
> I have SAS Pro running in the background on my own computer.
>
> However, as recorded in a previous posting, when I was helping a friend to
> recover from a problem, SAS wouldn't run, and it took Malwarebytes to save
> the day!
>
> Now I'm wondering if I should switch on my own computer.
>
> I do recognise (from browsing here and other groups) that these products
> only provide a back-stop, and true protection comes from "safe-hex" - and
> from following such advice I haven't had any problems at all for a long long
> time. However, I'd like to think that I have the best "back-stop".
>
The effectiveness of an individual scanning apps can be wide-ranging and
oftentimes a collection of scanners is best. There isn't one software that
cleans and protects you against everything. That's why you need multiple
products to do the job i.e. overlap their coverage - one may catch what
another may miss
"Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.236eb2b6a5d69c6e98968f@us.news.astraweb.c om...
> In article <ge2p1e$p04$1@aioe.org>, antispam@sparmmstop.net says...
>> "Safer" maybe, but if a rootkit has your name on it, it's only a matter
>> of
>> time before it gets you.
>>
>
> In my 30 years of using computers I've never personally had a virus or
> "root-kit" on any of them. In all my years of designing secure networks
> I've never had a compromised system on any managed network.
>
> It's all about knowing the vectors and how to control exposure.
>
I truly am happy for all those posting they NEVER have had infections.
But at the same time, you probably lock yourself out of the majority of the
internet to do so, or have simply been lucky.
With idiots writing new code daily, the odds are you are going to be
infected with "something " eventually.
Even if you take every measure possible today, you don't know what tomorrow
will bring.
Especially if you run Windoze.
I do try to keep on top of things, but you can't always have every
application up to date, and even windows security updates are only issued
AFTER a new virus/trojan surfaces.
However while I can't say I've never been infected, I usually catch things
that are not supposed to be there quickly and before they can do much
damage.
However, nothing will ever replace regular backup's as the best anti-malware
step you can take.
AMUN wrote:
> I truly am happy for all those posting they NEVER have had infections.
> But at the same time, you probably lock yourself out of the majority
> of the internet to do so, or have simply been lucky.
Thank you for being happy for me. <g>
And no, I have not locked myself out of anything.
--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
newsL6dnW-8EYv6eZnUnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@giganews.com:
> From: "AMUN" <antispam@sparmmstop.net>
>
>
>| "wasted" <rubbish@xxnone.notreal.com> wrote in message
>| news:Pamdnd1Gvc5bN5nUnZ2dnUVZ8rGdnZ2d@posted.plusn et...
>>> Hi
>
>>> Any comparisons known that compare these two?
>
>>> I have SAS Pro running in the background on my own computer.
>
>>> However, as recorded in a previous posting, when I was helping a
>>> friend to recover from a problem, SAS wouldn't run, and it took
>>> Malwarebytes to save the day!
>
>>> Now I'm wondering if I should switch on my own computer.
>
>>> I do recognise (from browsing here and other groups) that these
>>> products only provide a back-stop, and true protection comes from
>>> "safe-hex" - and from following such advice I haven't had any
>>> problems at all for a long long time. However, I'd like to think
>>> that I have the best "back-stop".
>
>>> Thanks
>
>| There is no such thing as "safe-hex" unless you disconnect all the
>| wires to your system and put a big latex balloon over it.
>| As soon as you shove in a disk or connect to the net you are
>| vulnerable.
>
>| As I see, another poster already mentioned use every program you can
>| get your hands on to check your system, as nothing is going to catch
>| everything. so any comparisons you may find will only be one time
>| situations. (and will almost always have some bias)
>
>| I just posted a comparison last week, but the results were hardly
>| "scientific", and all the programs missed things, or showed false
>| positives, that had to ultimately be removed or verified manually.
>| But at least they told me what to look for.
>
>
>| A regular regimen of backing up to an offline source (not system
>| restore) is your only sure fire way to never lose any data, or be
>| sure you can restore it after any infection.
>
>
>| Also I should say that "friends" who get in trouble will likely do it
>| again. Unless you can convince them not to open every attachment they
>| get, say yes to installing every program/add-on that will make their
>| system faster or their browser more functional, and stay away from
>| the "naughty" sites.
>
>| Even offering them anti-virus malware programs is pointless if they
>| then think they are totally invulnerable.
>
>
> There is such such a concept as "Safe Hex" and its all about how you
> use your computer and the practices you follow.
>
>
LOL, Don't bother Dave. this guy knows everything...
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
"AMUN" <antispam@sparmmstop.net> wrote in news:ge39i2$gi4$1@aioe.org:
> "Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.236eb2b6a5d69c6e98968f@us.news.astraweb.c om...
>> In article <ge2p1e$p04$1@aioe.org>, antispam@sparmmstop.net says...
>>> "Safer" maybe, but if a rootkit has your name on it, it's only a
>>> matter of
>>> time before it gets you.
>>>
>>
>> In my 30 years of using computers I've never personally had a virus
>> or "root-kit" on any of them. In all my years of designing secure
>> networks I've never had a compromised system on any managed network.
>>
>> It's all about knowing the vectors and how to control exposure.
>>
>
>
> I truly am happy for all those posting they NEVER have had infections.
> But at the same time, you probably lock yourself out of the majority
> of the internet to do so, or have simply been lucky.
Strange, I'm not locked out of anything, routinely use Administrator
accounts (hehehe), and I've never been infected by anything from the
web... except during testing and analysis, and that's quiet deliberate on
my part.
> However while I can't say I've never been infected, I usually catch
> things that are not supposed to be there quickly and before they can
> do much damage.
I don't know what it is you do, or what applications you use, nor do I
know how many others have access to your computer, so I can't say what's
actually the problem. I can pretty much say tho, somebody who has access
isn't practicing safe hex.
> However, nothing will ever replace regular backup's as the best
> anti-malware step you can take.
Backups aren't for malware, alone. Hardware failure can take your data
too. You have a higher chance of a hard disk failure than you do of
catching a virus if and only if you practice safe hex. One you can
prevent, the other isn't much upto you.
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
"wasted" <rubbish@xxnone.notreal.com> wrote in
news:Pamdnd1Gvc5bN5nUnZ2dnUVZ8rGdnZ2d@posted.plusn et:
> Hi
>
> Any comparisons known that compare these two?
Wouldn't be of much use. SAS and MBAM both update regularly. If you did a
comparison today, two days down the road, one might be outdoing the
other, and vice versa. It also depends on what your infected with.
> I have SAS Pro running in the background on my own computer.
In that case, use us as an on-demand backup. That way, if SAS misses
something, we might be able to catch it for you. And vice versa.
> However, as recorded in a previous posting, when I was helping a
> friend to recover from a problem, SAS wouldn't run, and it took
> Malwarebytes to save the day!
The same can happen to MalwareBytes, and it has happened on several
occasions now. SAS and MalwareBytes are both targetted by a few trojans
now.
The short of it all, Neither scanner will protect you from everything.
Your safer using them both than one or the other.
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
In article <ge39i2$gi4$1@aioe.org>, antispam@sparmmstop.net says...
>
> "Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.236eb2b6a5d69c6e98968f@us.news.astraweb.c om...
> > In article <ge2p1e$p04$1@aioe.org>, antispam@sparmmstop.net says...
> >> "Safer" maybe, but if a rootkit has your name on it, it's only a matter
> >> of
> >> time before it gets you.
> >>
> >
> > In my 30 years of using computers I've never personally had a virus or
> > "root-kit" on any of them. In all my years of designing secure networks
> > I've never had a compromised system on any managed network.
> >
> > It's all about knowing the vectors and how to control exposure.
> >
>
>
> I truly am happy for all those posting they NEVER have had infections.
> But at the same time, you probably lock yourself out of the majority of the
> internet to do so, or have simply been lucky.
That's not true at all. The internet is a vast place and most of it is
worthless. There are very rich areas that many don't know about, and
there are common areas that are rich with content that most know about.
Look at it like a State - you're not missing much from most locations.
> With idiots writing new code daily, the odds are you are going to be
> infected with "something " eventually.
> Even if you take every measure possible today, you don't know what tomorrow
> will bring.
> Especially if you run Windoze.
You're wrong, you don't understand it well enough to see that it's
fairly easy to remain safe. Once you understand the threats and how you
get compromised you can avoid them.
> I do try to keep on top of things, but you can't always have every
> application up to date, and even windows security updates are only issued
> AFTER a new virus/trojan surfaces.
That explains that you don't understand - I ran servers on networks that
were unpatched for years, in fact I don't normally install patches for
weeks...
> However while I can't say I've never been infected, I usually catch things
> that are not supposed to be there quickly and before they can do much
> damage.
It's easy to understand the entry points, to protect yourself, and you
don't have to miss the beauty of the net while doing it.
> However, nothing will ever replace regular backup's as the best anti-malware
> step you can take.
Wrong, backups can be compromised before you find out that you've been
compromised. The best method to protect yourself is to understand the
entry methods and take measures to prevent entry.
--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
"Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B43EB2F13D5DHHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250.. .
> "AMUN" <antispam@sparmmstop.net> wrote in news:ge39i2$gi4$1@aioe.org:
>
>> "Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.236eb2b6a5d69c6e98968f@us.news.astraweb.c om...
>>> In article <ge2p1e$p04$1@aioe.org>, antispam@sparmmstop.net says...
>>>> "Safer" maybe, but if a rootkit has your name on it, it's only a
>>>> matter of
>>>> time before it gets you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In my 30 years of using computers I've never personally had a virus
>>> or "root-kit" on any of them. In all my years of designing secure
>>> networks I've never had a compromised system on any managed network.
>>>
>>> It's all about knowing the vectors and how to control exposure.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I truly am happy for all those posting they NEVER have had infections.
>> But at the same time, you probably lock yourself out of the majority
>> of the internet to do so, or have simply been lucky.
>
> Strange, I'm not locked out of anything, routinely use Administrator
> accounts (hehehe), and I've never been infected by anything from the
> web... except during testing and analysis, and that's quiet deliberate on
> my part.
>
>> However while I can't say I've never been infected, I usually catch
>> things that are not supposed to be there quickly and before they can
>> do much damage.
>
> I don't know what it is you do, or what applications you use, nor do I
> know how many others have access to your computer, so I can't say what's
> actually the problem. I can pretty much say tho, somebody who has access
> isn't practicing safe hex.
Welllllll, with 5 people in the house, (3 kids), and several systems
networked, there is no way to keep everything out.
The kids aren't supposed to use my system (they have their own), but as it's
in my office, they often do for homework, and I won't stop them from doing
that.
But they have been taught what to normally avoid, and if they think a system
might be infected, it's immediately shut down until I can check it.
But I'm sure many others in my position, have systems so loaded with garbage
they won't even run, so I think I'm doing a fairly good job.<g>
>
>> However, nothing will ever replace regular backup's as the best
>> anti-malware step you can take.
>
> Backups aren't for malware, alone. Hardware failure can take your data
> too. You have a higher chance of a hard disk failure than you do of
> catching a virus if and only if you practice safe hex. One you can
> prevent, the other isn't much upto you.
Absolutely agree.
The backup was a habit I got into years ago, (when drives were far less
reliable) and often serves little use.
But when its needed......if a drive starts acting up, or somebody erases the
wrong files, or a terminal virus brings all the systems down.
It sure is nice to have, and lets me sleep well every night knowing it's
there.
"Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B43EA89A7954HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250.. .
> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
> news
>
>> From: "AMUN" <antispam@sparmmstop.net>
>>
>>
>>| "wasted" <rubbish@xxnone.notreal.com> wrote in message
>>| news:Pamdnd1Gvc5bN5nUnZ2dnUVZ8rGdnZ2d@posted.plusn et...
>>>> Hi
>>
>>>> Any comparisons known that compare these two?
>>
>>>> I have SAS Pro running in the background on my own computer.
>>
>>>> However, as recorded in a previous posting, when I was helping a
>>>> friend to recover from a problem, SAS wouldn't run, and it took
>>>> Malwarebytes to save the day!
>>
>>>> Now I'm wondering if I should switch on my own computer.
>>
>>>> I do recognise (from browsing here and other groups) that these
>>>> products only provide a back-stop, and true protection comes from
>>>> "safe-hex" - and from following such advice I haven't had any
>>>> problems at all for a long long time. However, I'd like to think
>>>> that I have the best "back-stop".
>>
>>>> Thanks
>>
>>| There is no such thing as "safe-hex" unless you disconnect all the
>>| wires to your system and put a big latex balloon over it.
>>| As soon as you shove in a disk or connect to the net you are
>>| vulnerable.
>>
>>| As I see, another poster already mentioned use every program you can
>>| get your hands on to check your system, as nothing is going to catch
>>| everything. so any comparisons you may find will only be one time
>>| situations. (and will almost always have some bias)
>>
>>| I just posted a comparison last week, but the results were hardly
>>| "scientific", and all the programs missed things, or showed false
>>| positives, that had to ultimately be removed or verified manually.
>>| But at least they told me what to look for.
>>
>>
>>| A regular regimen of backing up to an offline source (not system
>>| restore) is your only sure fire way to never lose any data, or be
>>| sure you can restore it after any infection.
>>
>>
>>| Also I should say that "friends" who get in trouble will likely do it
>>| again. Unless you can convince them not to open every attachment they
>>| get, say yes to installing every program/add-on that will make their
>>| system faster or their browser more functional, and stay away from
>>| the "naughty" sites.
>>
>>| Even offering them anti-virus malware programs is pointless if they
>>| then think they are totally invulnerable.
>>
>>
>> There is such such a concept as "Safe Hex" and its all about how you
>> use your computer and the practices you follow.
>>
>>
>
> LOL, Don't bother Dave. this guy knows everything...
>
I fail to understand why you seem to think everyone is as perfect as you,
and have nothing better to do all day than worry about what sites they might
visit or have time to read about every new hole that some hacker has
discovered.
Even you yourself just admitted that malwarebytes was compromised by some
malware for a few days until an upgrade patched that. Until the hacker who's
code targeted specific applications does it again.
So my saying no one scanner can be trusted completely, and people should use
everything they can get their hands on, as well as learning at least the
basics of how to clean manually is hardly foolish talk.
And ultimately no scanner will ever be as reliable as a good backup, to
remove all traces of sin.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote