1
1PW
*** *** *** Cross-Posted *** *** ***
MBAM version 1.34 was released today.
Enjoy.
Pete
MBAM version 1.34 was released today.
Enjoy.
Pete
B
~BD~
1PW said:
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention, Pete.
I am, though, just a little confused. You have said elsewhere that you "only
have eyes for Linux"
MBAM and Linux do not mix, viz:-
a.. Version: 1.34
a.. File Size: 2.74 MB
a.. Operating Systems: Microsoft ® Windows 2000, XP, Vista (32-bit only).
How would a Windows user know that installing MBAM really is a good thing to
do? Whilst the programme may well remove all manner of 'nasties' from the
machine of a user, how can that user be certain that it hasn't actually
*installed* some badware too?
As you don't use Windows, you would never know, would you? <smile>
1
1PW
misquote... Minus twenty.
Faulty logic? What did the educational YouTube video link, I sent you,
show? Minus twenty-five.
Fair question. But answered with a question:
How would one know if information received in these newsgroups is
legitimate?
Hint: My last MBAM 1.34/1752 full scan time was about 42 minutes.
....and I use the paid version of MBAM. True statements.
The plot thickens Dave. Is it time to re-examine your logic?
Pete
B
~BD~
I don't like losing points! In-line responses:-
You are correct. <pout>
You actually said "You have *never* read a word from me that didn't
originate from within a Linus Torvalds inspired system".
Hmmm! Maybe - not sure about that. Perhaps you are running Windows *within*
Linux - as a virtual machine. Surely, though, in such a case you'd never
need to 'clean' Windows with Mbam -would you?
There is absolutely NO way of knowing - unless the Spirit tells you/me. I'm
led to believe that I can trust *you* - so there!
It seems as if it *might* be a faulty assumption.
I have no understanding of why anyone using Linux as their operating system
would ever need to use MBAM - unless it was on a different personal Windows
machine, the computer of a family member, a friend or even a client/customer
Not really. Whilst I may be wrong and/or misguided from time to time - I'm
*still* one of the good guys!
HTH
1PW said:
You are correct. <pout>
You actually said "You have *never* read a word from me that didn't
originate from within a Linus Torvalds inspired system".
Hmmm! Maybe - not sure about that. Perhaps you are running Windows *within*
Linux - as a virtual machine. Surely, though, in such a case you'd never
need to 'clean' Windows with Mbam -would you?
There is absolutely NO way of knowing - unless the Spirit tells you/me. I'm
led to believe that I can trust *you* - so there!
It seems as if it *might* be a faulty assumption.
I have no understanding of why anyone using Linux as their operating system
would ever need to use MBAM - unless it was on a different personal Windows
machine, the computer of a family member, a friend or even a client/customer
Not really. Whilst I may be wrong and/or misguided from time to time - I'm
*still* one of the good guys!
HTH
F
FromTheRafters
Another puzzle for Dave? No note passing this time, I promise.
1
1PW
If I catch the two of you passing notes again, both of you will be sent
home with a note.
Top of the morning to you FTR...
Pete
B
~BD~
Top of the morning?
It's nearly my bed time!
Dave
It's nearly my bed time!
Dave
B
~BD~
1PW said:
That's a start!
Much better!
Perhaps you refer to the single email which you *sent* to me?
Not good! An answer to my query may have helped.
You drive a hard bargain, Sir!
Nothing is ever quite as it seems!
I have a guardian angel, of that I have no doubt.
I do not lie or steal - nor do I seek to kill my fellow human beings. There
are some using the 'net who do - but I am *not* one of them!
Go here and type in "~" without the quotes
http://www.malwarebytes.org/forums/index.php?act=members
I've been fishing for a long time!
Dave
--
B
~BD~
I'm struggling now!
Snip
You've lost me. Will you explain, please?
I did read on but am still no wiser. Sorry.
That's good to know! Maybe you have inside information.
I have not, actually, said that it did. I just felt it important that others
recognise that loading *any* programme /might/ do bad things as well as
good. In the fora I have visited 'helpers' give instructions which are
blindly followed.
Time to update, Pete!
My scan result:-
Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware 1.34
Database version: 1757
Windows 5.1.2600 Service Pack 3
13/02/2009 09:03:00
mbam-log-2009-02-13 (09-03-00).txt
Scan type: Full Scan (C:\|D:\|)
Objects scanned: 153212
Time elapsed: 44 minute(s), 33 second(s)
Memory Processes Infected: 0
Memory Modules Infected: 0
Registry Keys Infected: 0
Registry Values Infected: 0
Registry Data Items Infected: 0
Folders Infected: 0
Files Infected: 0
Memory Processes Infected:
(No malicious items detected)
Memory Modules Infected:
(No malicious items detected)
Registry Keys Infected:
(No malicious items detected)
Registry Values Infected:
(No malicious items detected)
Registry Data Items Infected:
(No malicious items detected)
Folders Infected:
(No malicious items detected)
Files Infected:
(No malicious items detected)
I have no experience of running another OS within Linux. I had a notion that
it would be a bit like the Google Chrome browser - where after a session
using the 'trial' OS it would simply be discarded totally and a 'fresh'
version used on the next occasion.
I now suspect that it's not like that at all!
Thank you!
Did you go there and note that I am an Honorary Member? I see no sign of you
there, yet you have paid your fee. I'm sure you could help many on the forum
there. Maybe you are registered with a different user name? If you are, you
can PM me there (~BD~)
I have thought about that but cannot tie up the ends. Help needed to
conclude this! <s>
Dave
--
Snip
You've lost me. Will you explain, please?
I did read on but am still no wiser. Sorry.
That's good to know! Maybe you have inside information.
I have not, actually, said that it did. I just felt it important that others
recognise that loading *any* programme /might/ do bad things as well as
good. In the fora I have visited 'helpers' give instructions which are
blindly followed.
Time to update, Pete!
My scan result:-
Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware 1.34
Database version: 1757
Windows 5.1.2600 Service Pack 3
13/02/2009 09:03:00
mbam-log-2009-02-13 (09-03-00).txt
Scan type: Full Scan (C:\|D:\|)
Objects scanned: 153212
Time elapsed: 44 minute(s), 33 second(s)
Memory Processes Infected: 0
Memory Modules Infected: 0
Registry Keys Infected: 0
Registry Values Infected: 0
Registry Data Items Infected: 0
Folders Infected: 0
Files Infected: 0
Memory Processes Infected:
(No malicious items detected)
Memory Modules Infected:
(No malicious items detected)
Registry Keys Infected:
(No malicious items detected)
Registry Values Infected:
(No malicious items detected)
Registry Data Items Infected:
(No malicious items detected)
Folders Infected:
(No malicious items detected)
Files Infected:
(No malicious items detected)
Hint: It's the opposite of no.
I have no experience of running another OS within Linux. I had a notion that
it would be a bit like the Google Chrome browser - where after a session
using the 'trial' OS it would simply be discarded totally and a 'fresh'
version used on the next occasion.
I now suspect that it's not like that at all!
Thank you!
Did you go there and note that I am an Honorary Member? I see no sign of you
there, yet you have paid your fee. I'm sure you could help many on the forum
there. Maybe you are registered with a different user name? If you are, you
can PM me there (~BD~)
I have thought about that but cannot tie up the ends. Help needed to
conclude this! <s>
Dave
--
D
Dustin Cook
Just one question.... Are you high?
B
~BD~
No, Sir!
Still naive? Probably!
Correct me where I am wrong, please.
My understanding is that 'malware' can be, and is, installed surrepticiously
upon millions of computers around the world. Often, a user is unaware that a
machine has been compromised.
There are many 'help' forums available on the Internet. It seems only
logical that some such operations may take advantage of inexperienced folk
who do, without a second thought, download all manner of executable
programmes onto their machines (as instructed by a 'helper').
Once a machine has been declared 'clean' - how can the average user possibly
know that something 'nastie' has not been *added* to their machine if it
appears to operate 'normally'?
This couldn't/wouldn't happen? Are you sure?
1
1PW
Almost a bit like Conficker, huh? Reads like good, safe computing and
realtime antimalware applications are needed Dave.
Reputation leads to trust. If David Lipman suggested an MBAM scan for a
particular infection you described in /your/ computer, what would you do?
Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS), realtime antimalware scans, or
flatten, rebuild, restore from backups.
You already know that answer.
Trust must start somewhere and some paranoia is useful.
MBAM has our trust through its reputation Dave. A bogus MBAM /could/ be
downloaded from a disreputable source of course. But by only
downloading from MalwareBytes.com, it comes as close to 100% trust as is
possible.
Some software authors will provide md5/sha1 hashes or PGP/GPG signed
files that accompany the download and this is welcomed by some, but some
reluctance on the part of authors and users is making that level of
verification difficult. How then do we implement: trust but verify?
If one is paralyzed by so much suspicion and doubt, then it's probably
best to leave your computer turned off or only surf the net and do email
through LiveCDs.
What will you do now Dave?
Pete
B
~BD~
Before I answer you in this thread, Pete, I'd like you to contact me again
by email ........... and this time grant permission for me to respond to
you in like manner. I respected your wishes previously - if you really are
one of the good guys, please respond to this request. Thank you.
by email ........... and this time grant permission for me to respond to
you in like manner. I respected your wishes previously - if you really are
one of the good guys, please respond to this request. Thank you.
M
Max Wachtel
~BD~, after much thought, came up with this jewel:
I'm not sure if there is any hope for you......
You still haven't figured out who the good guys are yet?Before I answer you in this thread, Pete, I'd like you to contact me again
by email ........... and this time grant permission for me to respond to
you in like manner. I respected your wishes previously - if you really are
one of the good guys, please respond to this request. Thank you.
I'm not sure if there is any hope for you......
B
~BD~
Max Wachtel said:
When I first came to the groups I believed *everyone*. In the case of the
Microsoft groups I naively thought everything was being moderated and
checked by Microsoft itself. Doh!
I'd been led to believe that any 'bad' posts would be scorned by 'the good
guys' - just like folk gang-up on The Real Truth MVP (PCButts1).
One of those supposedly 'good guys' was/is Robear Dyer (PA Bear) but he has
lied - he's told everyone 'here' who cares to read that I (~BD~, BoaterDave,
Beady, Imbeady2 and John_D) have been banned/sacked by a number of ISP's.
That is one simple fact which I KNOW, categorically, is a lie. It simply
isn't true. Or maybe it wasn't really him posting at all - it could have
been an imposter, couldn't it?
J
John Mason Jr
~BD~ said:
You should only download & run software on your computer that you trust,
you need to decide what level of verification you require, and make
appropriate decisions.
John
M
Max Wachtel
~BD~, after much thought, came up with this jewel:
I can't believe your still ranting about bear-give it a rest (makes you
look like a troll).
When I first came to the groups I believed *everyone*. In the case of the
Microsoft groups I naively thought everything was being moderated and
checked by Microsoft itself. Doh!
I'd been led to believe that any 'bad' posts would be scorned by 'the good
guys' - just like folk gang-up on The Real Truth MVP (PCButts1).
One of those supposedly 'good guys' was/is Robear Dyer (PA Bear) but he has
lied - he's told everyone 'here' who cares to read that I (~BD~, BoaterDave,
Beady, Imbeady2 and John_D) have been banned/sacked by a number of ISP's.
That is one simple fact which I KNOW, categorically, is a lie. It simply
isn't true. Or maybe it wasn't really him posting at all - it could have
been an imposter, couldn't it?
I can't believe your still ranting about bear-give it a rest (makes you
look like a troll).
B
~BD~
John Mason Jr said:
Thank you for taking the trouble to respond, John. I *do* understand!
I do not doubt the credibility of MBAM even though the facility came from
nowhere in a very short time - what is it now? Three years perhaps? In a
similar timescale, SuperAntiSpyware came from nowhere too. I still remember
that expression "There's no such thing as a free lunch".
My point was - still is - that when people experience computer problems, and
end up in newsgroups seeking help, they are directed to unknown places (for
them). They are then invited to download all manner of 'cleaning' material -
about which they have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever - and they put
blind trust in their 'helper'.
Such activity, IMO, is wide open to abuse.
F
FromTheRafters
It is called "human nature" and you are right - it is easily
exploited. Some refer to it as "social engineering" when
software is crafted to exploit human nature. It is by far
the most prevalent vulnerability in computer security. You
spin the wheel and you take your chances. Usenet is the
"wild west" of the internet.
You just have to make your own decision about trust, and
hopefully it is an informed decision.
J
John Mason Jr
~BD~ said:
Then the individuals are trusting the advise they are given. They may
not understand the risks but it is still their responsibility to make
the decision.
John