How to load DVD-ROMS with a virus

[Dustin]

Really? Well that's your opinion. I got stuff like USB hub would
not work. Got stuff like taking forever to load programs. And all
this after the memtest that's famous and used for testing RAM passed
with flying colors for this improperly seated memory. Seating the
memory solved the virus like false positive.

While it's my opinion, it's that of an expert in antimalware and that
of a certified PC technician. <G>

Taking forever to load programs is the result of your system running on
a stick (assuming you only have two) less of ram. It's why it passed
the memcheck; You should have noticed it wasn't detecting the correct
amount of ram tho...*shrug*. That's on you, imo. Luckily for you, the
unseated ram wasn't crossing any power pins and was far enough out that
the system didn't see it during post, otherwise.. well, You might be
replacing a system board.

Without further accurate information, I couldn't determine what would
cause your USB hub failure. Although, I doubt it was related to
unseated ram. <G>

Based on what you've posted, I see no indications of a virus. Do you
have anything further and more specific?

 

[RayLopez99]

Hey, ****ing moron...

My Multi-AV Scanning Tool provides the scanners of;  Avira, Emsisoft, Sophos, Trend Micro
and Kaspersky.

Sure you did, Dave. Sure you did. Now please take your 'vitamin'
pills and be a good boy.

I did not write an antivirus engine and signatures.

I wrote a kernel around vendor's command line scanners.

Oh yes, like that's believable. NOT. Why would the entire industry
trust a single person to write, probably in C language, kernel code?
That single person could put a back door in the kernel and cause
mischief all over the world. That doesn't make much sense now does it
Dave?

This includes a special license from Avira specifically provided to me for my utility's
use of their command line scanner and expressed permission and approval from Christian
Mairoll of Emsisoft for the use of his scanner.

"Special" license he says. Name dropping noted. I think you are
"special" Dave. In a PC pejorative way.

Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived. This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Apr 30, 5:33 am).

Good idea. We wouldn't want such an embarrassing post resurfacing
years from now, would we Dave?

RL

 

[RayLopez99]

While it's my opinion, it's that of an expert in antimalware and that
of a certified PC technician. <G>

Well that's interesting. Maybe I should pay more attention to what
you say. At least you are not claiming, like Dave here, that you
wrote code used by all the anti-virus people in industry. That would
be ludicrous.

Taking forever to load programs is the result of your system running on
a stick (assuming you only have two) less of ram. It's why it passed
the memcheck; You should have noticed it wasn't detecting the correct
amount of ram tho...*shrug*. That's on you, imo. Luckily for you, the
unseated ram wasn't crossing any power pins and was far enough out that
the system didn't see it during post, otherwise.. well, You might be
replacing a system board.

Interesting. I don't have any logs for the memory tester, but I would
have noticed something as obvious as the memory tester not detecting
the full amount of memory--I would have hoped. But perhaps not--in
which case it would have been a glaring mistake.

As for your comment about crossing power pins, I wouldn't think badly
seated memory could do that--to short a mobo--but I take it you speak
with some experience.

I just reviewed my notes on the incident in question: besides
reseating the memory, the SATA hard drive connections were reset/
reseated. So perhaps a faulty connection with the SATA drives also
was a problem?

In any event it was not a virus--unless viruses exist that
automatically delete themselves after a few reboots or time passed
(I'm sure there's at least one or two that do this).

RL

 

[Dustin]

Well that's interesting. Maybe I should pay more attention to what
you say. At least you are not claiming, like Dave here, that you
wrote code used by all the anti-virus people in industry. That
would be ludicrous.

Dave wasn't claiming that. He did write a nice front end for a variety of
antivirus tools tho. The app, Multi_AV is pretty sharp man. You should
put whatever issues you have with Dave aside and give it a try for
yourself.

As for your comment about crossing power pins, I wouldn't think
badly seated memory could do that--to short a mobo--but I take it
you speak with some experience.

Myself? No. However, I've seen enough of them in the shop and on service
calls.

 

[RayLopez99]

Get a room!

You missed the joke. Gay Guy was referring to this quote: "> >> I'll
have to look at your tool one day, David. "

RL

 

[RayLopez99]

Dave wasn't claiming that. He did write a nice front end for a variety of
antivirus tools tho. The app, Multi_AV is pretty sharp man. You should
put whatever issues you have with Dave aside and give it a try for
yourself.

A better FRONT end? You mean the GUI? I could care less about the
front end--I want to know about the back end, the engine that catches
the malware.

But aside from that, in your practical experience how much "more
better" can you get if you run several AV / malware engines, one after
the other? It always seemed to me to be an exercise in futility.
That is, if you run (like I do) the free Comodo AV tool, and then you
run Norton or what have you afterwards (and keep in mind on a large HD
even with a fast multi-core microprocessor it takes several hours for
the tests to run, at least on my machines they do), what are the
chances you'll find some malware that the first AV engine missed? I
would imagine it's less than 1% of the time--and I'm taking actual
malware, not false positives (as it is well known certain engines are
very aggressive and will give a slew of false positives).

Same question for running some AV tests "intensively", which is an
option some engines have for testing each file for more than just the
header / footer byte signatures, which takes more time. How often to
they result in finding more actual viruses / malware?

RL

 

[gufus]

Hello, JD!

I didn't miss the joke. "Get a room" is what you tell two people that want
to compare their "tools."

You'all *really* missed the point.. I *don't* have a tool.
-
With best regards, gufus. E-mail: (e-mail address removed)
Message-ID: (e-mail address removed) Sent at 14:13

 

[Dustin]

A better FRONT end? You mean the GUI? I could care less about the
front end--I want to know about the back end, the engine that
catches the malware.

GUI if you want to call it that, sure. It has multiple backends or
engines.

But aside from that, in your practical experience how much "more
better" can you get if you run several AV / malware engines, one
after the other? It always seemed to me to be an exercise in
futility. That is, if you run (like I do) the free Comodo AV tool,

Each program has it's own way of looking for things it considers to be
malware. As each program does this in it's own way; it's entirely
possible (and often happens) one will catch something the other has no
clue about until it's next update.

Same question for running some AV tests "intensively", which is an
option some engines have for testing each file for more than just
the header / footer byte signatures, which takes more time. How
often to they result in finding more actual viruses / malware?

Most AV engines do more than examine the header and footer. They
have to detect completely non-viral things these days too.

Needless to say, if you personally feel it's a waste of time I won't be
able to convince you otherwise. Do what you wish with the information
I've provided. My computers work.