Re: I received a warning from Google ......

Discussion in 'Anti-Virus' started by FromTheRafters, Aug 12, 2010.

  1. "~BD~" <BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:...

    [...]

    > Btw, if you had physical access to a Windows machine, is there a
    > simple check you could carry out to quickly determine if the machine
    > had, indeed, been compromised? (other than scanning with anti-malware
    > programmes).


    Yes, but not very simple really. The problem is that you could *not*
    determine that it had *not* been compromised. Most malware is going to
    want to "do stuff" with the computing power it is stealing from you, if
    it does that stuff - you know the machine has been compromised.

    IOW, if it spews out malicious packets when you sufficiently emulate a
    networking environment for it (or use a "test network"), that's a pretty
    good indicator. However, If it doesn't do any obvious stuff, it doesn't
    mean anything at all.
     
    FromTheRafters, Aug 12, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. "~BD~" <BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:...
    > FromTheRafters wrote:
    >> "~BD~"<BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >> [...]
    >>
    >>> Btw, if you had physical access to a Windows machine, is there a
    >>> simple check you could carry out to quickly determine if the machine
    >>> had, indeed, been compromised? (other than scanning with
    >>> anti-malware
    >>> programmes).

    >>
    >> Yes, but not very simple really. The problem is that you could *not*
    >> determine that it had *not* been compromised. Most malware is going
    >> to
    >> want to "do stuff" with the computing power it is stealing from you,
    >> if
    >> it does that stuff - you know the machine has been compromised.
    >>
    >> IOW, if it spews out malicious packets when you sufficiently emulate
    >> a
    >> networking environment for it (or use a "test network"), that's a
    >> pretty
    >> good indicator. However, If it doesn't do any obvious stuff, it
    >> doesn't
    >> mean anything at all.

    >
    > Hmmmmm! :) Thanks for that. 'Ant' said quite simply, "no"!


    He answered the question I think that you *meant* to ask.

    "Is there a simple way to show a system is *not* compromised once you
    have physical access to the machine aside from using antimalware
    antivirus tools?" - and since absence of evidence is not evidence of
    absence the answer is indeed no - even with AM/AV.

    > I said - on another group:-
    >
    > > I wonder how many realise that installing an anti-virus programme
    > > > *after* a machine has already been compromised might well give
    > > > comfort to the user ...... but provide absolutely NO protection
    > > > from
    > > > malware!


    True, it could be installed and be kept from accessing certain areas by
    a rootkit.

    > Dustin Cook said in reply:-
    >
    > "*That's not true, BD*. In fact, if the malware is known to the
    > antivirus app, there's a very good chance it can be removed without
    > harm to the system."


    True, and the reason is that most of those apps will attempt to remove
    known installed malware before it actually installs itself on the
    machine. Many of them check for rootkits before allowing installation to
    proceed. So, what Dustin said was true, but your eyes might have glazed
    over when he wrote the word "known".

    The Virus Description Language used to create the definitions to detect
    and identify a malware item also includes clues as to how to go about
    removing the identified malware.

    > I'd also said:-
    >
    > > > In other words, today's 'nasties' can (and do) protect themselves
    > > > when subjected to what they consider an attack! Bad news!

    >
    > Dustin Cook responded:-
    >
    > "They don't do anything "new" today that they couldn't do back in the
    > 80s and 90s. "rootkit" on windows is another word for stealth, it just
    > sounds better in newsprint."


    True again, some actual viruses have in the past used some of the same
    tricks that are essential to rootkit technology. The term "rootkit" is
    just a renaming of these stealth methods that are used similarly to the
    unix style tool replacement kits. That is to say that in addition to
    stealing your computer power, they steal more in order to take measures
    to hide that fact from the user (or admin, or even the system itself).

    > /I/ think *Dustin* is wrong. I believe that installing an anti-virus
    > programme on an already compromised machine is, in all probability, a
    > futile exercise.


    They used to say that you shouldn't install an AV on a compromised
    machine.

    Dustin didn't actually say otherwise, but he *did* say that known
    malware would probably be removed without a problem when an attempt is
    made to install the AV. My guess is that he considers the scan to be
    part of the install process, and I believe it is these days.

    > I'd be interested to learn the views of others on this particular
    > matter.


    Are you asking if flatten and rebuild is actually the *only* way to be
    absolutely sure? Keep in mind that most people are content to be
    'reasonably sure' after scanning their system and installing their AV
    program. If reasonably sure isn't good enough for someone, I recommend a
    robust back-up/restore method so that 'flatten and rebuild' does not
    seem so daunting as it *does* provide better confidence.

    Another thing, it would be important to know what you mean by
    "compromised". Some malware is pretty lame, would it constitute a
    compromise to you if it sent spam but had no command and control network
    activity? Hell, sometimes all you need to do is hit the delete button to
    send a malware to the bit bucket.
     
    FromTheRafters, Aug 12, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. FromTheRafters

    Peter Foldes Guest

    BD

    You are Trolling. You already went through with this exact same exercise last year
    on the MS newsgroups and you know the answer.

    WTF are you playing these pitiful games for. You are a Troll that is hungry for
    more food. In other words , you are a fool and an idiot who likes to play games. Get
    a life already


    --
    Peter

    Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
    Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
    http://www.microsoft.com/protect

    "~BD~" <BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:...
    > /I/ think *Dustin* is wrong. I believe that installing an anti-virus programme on
    > an already compromised machine is, in all probability, a futile exercise.
    >
    > I'd be interested to learn the views of others on this particular matter.
    >
    > --
    > Dave
    >
    >
     
    Peter Foldes, Aug 12, 2010
    #3
  4. FromTheRafters

    Dustin Guest

    ~BD~ <BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
    news::

    > /I/ think *Dustin* is wrong. I believe that installing an anti-virus
    > programme on an already compromised machine is, in all probability,
    > a futile exercise.


    LOL, you would certainly be in the minority if you think I was wrong in
    the advice I provided concerning malware. Remember one important aspect,
    ****stick; I know malware from two sides: coding it AND removing it. You
    don't even know it well from the removal side.

    > I'd be interested to learn the views of others on this particular
    > matter.


    And atleast one knowledgable fellow posted, further clarifying what I
    said and agreeing with me.

    Any more shit you'd like to try and stir, moron?




    --
    "I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
    your Christ." - author unknown.
     
    Dustin, Aug 12, 2010
    #4
  5. FromTheRafters

    ASCII Guest

    Dustin wrote:
    >Remember one important aspect,
    >****stick; I know malware from two sides: coding it AND removing it. You
    >don't even know it well from the removal side.


    That's our raidieboi,
    always thumping his chest over the only thing he ever learn't (coding virii)

    >Any more shit you'd like to try and stir, moron?


    and displaying the usual (for him) diplomacy.

    Is it any wonder so many routinely reject his vulgar tirades
    even as he's thinking his advice is accepted and appreciated?
     
    ASCII, Aug 12, 2010
    #5
  6. FromTheRafters

    Dustin Guest

    ~BD~ <BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
    news::

    > Dustin wrote:
    >> ~BD~<BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>> /I/ think *Dustin* is wrong. *I believe that installing an
    >>> anti-virus programme on an already compromised machine is, in all
    >>> probability, a futile exercise*.

    >>
    >> LOL, you would certainly be in the minority if you think I was
    >> wrong in the advice I provided concerning malware. Remember one
    >> important aspect, ****stick; I know malware from two sides: coding
    >> it AND removing it. You don't even know it well from the removal
    >> side.

    >
    > I regret to advise you that you are well behind the times, young
    > man! :)


    Let's say for a moment I was behind the times; I'm *still* lightyears
    ahead of you if that was the case.

    > *Much* has changed since you were a 'script kiddie', Dustin.


    I didn't do any script kiddie style work, BD. Mine we're actual exe
    infectors.


    >>> I'd be interested to learn the views of others on this particular
    >>> matter.

    >>
    >> And atleast one knowledgable fellow posted, further clarifying what
    >> I said and agreeing with me.

    >
    > FTR made an excellent reply, for which I thank him. Cheers, FTR! ;)
    >
    > However, if you read what he said again, carefully, you might
    > understand that he was not in /full/ agreement with what you had
    > said.


    Difference of opinion, not only was he in agreement; he actually
    explained why.

    >> Any more shit you'd like to try and stir, moron?

    >
    > I simply want you to understand that you are *not* God's Gift to
    > fighting Cybercrime, Dustin. Much has happened in recent years and
    > the *really* bad guys are *much* more clever that /you/ have ever
    > been - or will ever be. Believe me! ;-)


    BD, your a complete and utter ****ing fool. Nothing has changed, the
    technology and the methods for doing the nasties is still VERY MUCH the
    same. The underlying principles are what causes this, ****stick.




    --
    "I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
    your Christ." - author unknown.
     
    Dustin, Aug 13, 2010
    #6
  7. FromTheRafters

    Dustin Guest

    ~BD~ <BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
    news::

    > Dustin wrote:
    >> ~BD~<BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>> Dustin wrote:
    >>>> ~BD~<BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
    >>>> news::
    >>>>
    >>>>> /I/ think *Dustin* is wrong. *I believe that installing an
    >>>>> anti-virus programme on an already compromised machine is, in
    >>>>> all probability, a futile exercise*.
    >>>>
    >>>> LOL, you would certainly be in the minority if you think I was
    >>>> wrong in the advice I provided concerning malware.

    >
    > [....]
    >
    >
    > What FTR actually said .....
    >
    > "True, it could be installed and be kept from accessing certain
    > areas by a rootkit".


    A rootkit still has to play by certain hardrules; nothing can be hidden
    completely. Some in house developed tools for prior work with
    malwarebytes are likely useful in such a scenario.

    I didn't say I couldn't do it without any tools. I just said I wouldn't
    provide details. And what would be the point in doing so anyway? You
    wouldn't understand what I was writing about... and I'd just be
    providing information to anyone interested in circumventing technology
    rootkit style. While I don't feel it's information that they couldn't
    acquire on their own, I see no real point in.. well, advancing the
    technology ahead of schedule.

    > Do you *really* disagree with that?


    Of course not, a rootkit is nothing more than stealth; BD. However,
    it's not foolproof. The old addage is this: "Whatever software can do,
    software can undo."; That does *not* include crypto, however. Another
    beast entirely.

    To further on my post previous to you BD, Technology and the underlying
    principles hasn't really changed that much. Computers are faster now,
    sure; but they still follow the same laws if you will that the older
    ones did. In the DOS days, TSR software could be what you would say is
    a rootkit in the windows world; providing it was instructed to hide
    folders from dir or windows explorer *g*.


    --
    "I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
    your Christ." - author unknown.
     
    Dustin, Aug 13, 2010
    #7
  8. FromTheRafters

    Dustin Guest

    ASCII <> wrote in news:4c647925.3763375@EDCBIC:

    > That's our raidieboi,


    Hello ASCII.

    I didn't check the headers BD set for the thread he's recently hijacked
    to hell. My bad.





    --
    "I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
    your Christ." - author unknown.
     
    Dustin, Aug 13, 2010
    #8
  9. "Dustin" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9DD3B747B5F97HHI2948AJD832@no...

    [...]

    > The old addage is this: "Whatever software can do,
    > software can undo."; That does *not* include crypto,
    > however. Another beast entirely.


    It can be sucessfully argued that it still holds even for crypto. The
    thing is, the length of time required to do the undoing outlasts the
    value of the retrieved information, so it wouldn't be worth it. In fact
    the time scales involved in software reversing of long keylength crypto
    may be greater than the age of the universe or perhaps even of its
    future expected lifespan (whatever that might be) but I don't see how
    that could ever be provable.
     
    FromTheRafters, Aug 13, 2010
    #9
  10. "~BD~" <BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Dustin wrote:
    >> ~BD~<BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>> Dustin wrote:
    >>>> ~BD~<BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
    >>>> news::
    >>>>
    >>>>> /I/ think *Dustin* is wrong. *I believe that installing an
    >>>>> anti-virus programme on an already compromised machine is, in all
    >>>>> probability, a futile exercise*.
    >>>>
    >>>> LOL, you would certainly be in the minority if you think I was
    >>>> wrong in the advice I provided concerning malware.

    >
    > [....]
    >
    >
    > What FTR actually said .....
    >
    > "True, it could be installed and be kept from accessing certain areas
    > by a rootkit".
    >
    > Do you *really* disagree with that?


    One thing you are apparently not getting the significance of is that the
    "installation software" for the proposed AV that you want to install on
    the "compromised" machine likely has its own detection software for
    known malware (including some rootkits) *and* rootkit detection software
    that alerts to inconsistancies in what is presented through APIs to the
    other tools due to filter drivers and the like.

    It may be impossible to install such AV programs on a "compromised"
    machine, if the preinstallation detection software is aware of, yet not
    capable of removing detected malicious activity - it may tell you that
    you need to address the other issue before attempting to install that
    software (I'm not aware of this actually happening though).

    The most likely scenario is that the installation goes off smoothly
    without a hitch on *most* compromised machines (removing the compromise
    in the process) - which, I believe, is Dustin's point.
     
    FromTheRafters, Aug 14, 2010
    #10
  11. From: "FromTheRafters" <>

    | "~BD~" <BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
    | news:...
    >> Dustin wrote:
    >>> ~BD~<BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
    >>> news::


    >>>> Dustin wrote:
    >>>>> ~BD~<BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
    >>>>> news::


    >>>>>> /I/ think *Dustin* is wrong. *I believe that installing an
    >>>>>> anti-virus programme on an already compromised machine is, in all
    >>>>>> probability, a futile exercise*.


    >>>>> LOL, you would certainly be in the minority if you think I was
    >>>>> wrong in the advice I provided concerning malware.


    >> [....]



    >> What FTR actually said .....


    >> "True, it could be installed and be kept from accessing certain areas
    >> by a rootkit".


    >> Do you *really* disagree with that?


    | One thing you are apparently not getting the significance of is that the
    | "installation software" for the proposed AV that you want to install on
    | the "compromised" machine likely has its own detection software for
    | known malware (including some rootkits) *and* rootkit detection software
    | that alerts to inconsistancies in what is presented through APIs to the
    | other tools due to filter drivers and the like.

    | It may be impossible to install such AV programs on a "compromised"
    | machine, if the preinstallation detection software is aware of, yet not
    | capable of removing detected malicious activity - it may tell you that
    | you need to address the other issue before attempting to install that
    | software (I'm not aware of this actually happening though).

    | The most likely scenario is that the installation goes off smoothly
    | without a hitch on *most* compromised machines (removing the compromise
    | in the process) - which, I believe, is Dustin's point.


    That a case of an in situ installation of a fully installed AV soloution.

    That's not the case of of the hard disk being removed and placed within a surrogate.

    --
    Dave
    http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
    Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
     
    David H. Lipman, Aug 14, 2010
    #11
  12. FromTheRafters

    Dustin Guest

    "FromTheRafters" <> wrote in
    news:i44jam$47j$-september.org:

    > "~BD~" <BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Dustin wrote:
    >>> ~BD~<BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
    >>> news::
    >>>
    >>>> Dustin wrote:
    >>>>> ~BD~<BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
    >>>>> news::
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> /I/ think *Dustin* is wrong. *I believe that installing an
    >>>>>> anti-virus programme on an already compromised machine is, in
    >>>>>> all probability, a futile exercise*.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> LOL, you would certainly be in the minority if you think I was
    >>>>> wrong in the advice I provided concerning malware.

    >>
    >> [....]
    >>
    >>
    >> What FTR actually said .....
    >>
    >> "True, it could be installed and be kept from accessing certain
    >> areas by a rootkit".
    >>
    >> Do you *really* disagree with that?

    >
    > One thing you are apparently not getting the significance of is that
    > the "installation software" for the proposed AV that you want to
    > install on the "compromised" machine likely has its own detection
    > software for known malware (including some rootkits) *and* rootkit
    > detection software that alerts to inconsistancies in what is
    > presented through APIs to the other tools due to filter drivers and
    > the like.
    >
    > It may be impossible to install such AV programs on a "compromised"
    > machine, if the preinstallation detection software is aware of, yet
    > not capable of removing detected malicious activity - it may tell
    > you that you need to address the other issue before attempting to
    > install that software (I'm not aware of this actually happening
    > though).
    >
    > The most likely scenario is that the installation goes off smoothly
    > without a hitch on *most* compromised machines (removing the
    > compromise in the process) - which, I believe, is Dustin's point.
    >
    >
    >


    Nicely put, FTR..


    --
    "I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
    your Christ." - author unknown.
     
    Dustin, Aug 14, 2010
    #12
  13. FromTheRafters

    Dustin Guest

    "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
    news::

    > From: "FromTheRafters" <>
    >
    >| "~BD~" <BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
    >| news:...
    >>> Dustin wrote:
    >>>> ~BD~<BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
    >>>> news::

    >
    >>>>> Dustin wrote:
    >>>>>> ~BD~<BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
    >>>>>> news::

    >
    >>>>>>> /I/ think *Dustin* is wrong. *I believe that installing an
    >>>>>>> anti-virus programme on an already compromised machine is, in
    >>>>>>> all probability, a futile exercise*.

    >
    >>>>>> LOL, you would certainly be in the minority if you think I was
    >>>>>> wrong in the advice I provided concerning malware.

    >
    >>> [....]

    >
    >
    >>> What FTR actually said .....

    >
    >>> "True, it could be installed and be kept from accessing certain
    >>> areas by a rootkit".

    >
    >>> Do you *really* disagree with that?

    >
    >| One thing you are apparently not getting the significance of is
    >| that the "installation software" for the proposed AV that you want
    >| to install on the "compromised" machine likely has its own
    >| detection software for known malware (including some rootkits)
    >| *and* rootkit detection software that alerts to inconsistancies in
    >| what is presented through APIs to the other tools due to filter
    >| drivers and the like.
    >
    >| It may be impossible to install such AV programs on a "compromised"
    >| machine, if the preinstallation detection software is aware of, yet
    >| not capable of removing detected malicious activity - it may tell
    >| you that you need to address the other issue before attempting to
    >| install that software (I'm not aware of this actually happening
    >| though).
    >
    >| The most likely scenario is that the installation goes off smoothly
    >| without a hitch on *most* compromised machines (removing the
    >| compromise in the process) - which, I believe, is Dustin's point.
    >
    >
    > That a case of an in situ installation of a fully installed AV
    > soloution.
    >
    > That's not the case of of the hard disk being removed and placed
    > within a surrogate.


    Well, once you remove the host drive and take the suspect bad host out
    of the equisation, it does make life easier for hunting malware. :p




    --
    "I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
    your Christ." - author unknown.
     
    Dustin, Aug 14, 2010
    #13
  14. FromTheRafters

    Dustin Guest

    ~BD~ <BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
    news::

    > Dustin wrote:
    >> ~BD~<BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
    >>> What FTR actually said .....
    >>>
    >>> "True, it could be installed and be kept from accessing certain
    >>> areas by a rootkit".

    >>
    >> A rootkit still has to play by certain hardrules; nothing can be
    >> hidden completely. Some in house developed tools for prior work
    >> with malwarebytes are likely useful in such a scenario.

    >
    > Just to be clear, Dustin - it is *you* who is accepted as being the
    > guru! I am simply an interested 'user' who is frustrated by the fact
    > that bad guys use this marvelous technology with criminal intent.


    Do you think I got the brownie points and respect from my peers
    overnight? I've been doing this for a very long time, BD.


    >> I didn't say I couldn't do it without any tools. I just said I
    >> wouldn't provide details. And what would be the point in doing so
    >> anyway? You wouldn't understand what I was writing about... and I'd
    >> just be providing information to anyone interested in circumventing
    >> technology rootkit style. While I don't feel it's information that
    >> they couldn't acquire on their own, I see no real point in.. well,
    >> advancing the technology ahead of schedule.

    >
    > That all seems a most reasonable stance to take.


    Finally, you're starting to understand.

    > Let me now quote from another 'guru'
    >
    > "Performing a standard Disk Format and Reinstall of the Operating
    > System will render common infections incompatible, but not all
    > Rootkits and its accompanying payload of malware ..... Rootkits work
    > from outside the Operating System and can hide in Bad Sectors of the
    > Hard Disk - thus have places to hide on the Hard Disk that are
    > essentially outside the Operating Systems environment, untouchable
    > by it, yet still at hand.....


    While they can hide in bad sectors, without code pointing the machine
    to run the code found in the bad sectors; it's like having the
    components on your shelf to make a bomb, but short of you mixing the
    stuff and wiring the circuits up; it's not going to explode.

    Sectors don't have much room, and you have to account for low level
    disk utilities such as spinrite that will test bad sectors and reissue
    them as good if they aren't actually bad; trashing the rootkit code
    storage site.

    > Most wiping, erasing, formatting, and partitioning tools will not
    > overwrite logical bad sectors on the Disk, leaving the Rootkits and
    > their accompanying payload of malware behind and still active.....


    You should ask the guru who wrote this doomsday scenario for a viable
    sample; or reference to one being shown wild. I won't hold my breathe
    while I wait for those results, tho.

    > Rootkits in themselves are not a threat ..... the danger is that
    > Rootkits have the invincible power of Stealth ..... Malicious
    > Programmers can hide their malware safely inside the protection of
    > the Rootkit....."


    I disagree with invincible; they are still software; running at a lower
    level than say notepad, but still, software non the less.

    > That doesn't sound too dissimilar to what *you* have said, does it?


    Except I didn't try to scare anybody with the age old "it can hide in
    the bad sectors!"; Did you know some late 80s copy protection used a
    similar technique? In 1986, a game I bought for the coco3 had copy
    protection via bad sectors; the built in diskcopy program couldn't deal
    with bad sector disks, it would abort.

    > That was a thread which I started back in Oct 2007! Maybe if others
    > read all the posts there they'll have a better understanding of the
    > /real/ BD! ;)


    The real BD? Seems, your a paranoid person, to me.


    --
    "I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
    your Christ." - author unknown.
     
    Dustin, Aug 14, 2010
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Virus Guy

    Re: I received a warning from Google ......

    Virus Guy, Aug 7, 2010, in forum: Anti-Virus
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    366
  2. FromTheRafters

    Re: I received a warning from Google ......

    FromTheRafters, Aug 7, 2010, in forum: Anti-Virus
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    336
    Peter Foldes
    Aug 8, 2010
  3. Ron
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    286
  4. Toxic
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    308
    Toxic
    Aug 10, 2010
  5. Peter Foldes

    Re: I received a warning from Google ......

    Peter Foldes, Aug 11, 2010, in forum: Anti-Virus
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    328
    Peter Foldes
    Aug 11, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page