If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
On 11/05/2020 19:16, nospam wrote:
In article , David_B wrote: Some Mac downloads, you can go through them with 7ZIP on Windows and examine what filetypes are in there. Which could give a hint how much "leverage" they need to do their job. That's not something I'd feel confident to explore, Paul. it's meaningless. How would YOU look for a rootkit an an Apple computer? these days, one can't be too careful, thus an sem is mandatory, ideally fortnightly or less to prevent the spread to other nearby computers, given that r0 is incalculable. False. I don't believe you know. :-( I've been advised that such forensic examination of a machine could take a very long time and be VERY expennsive. you claim to have opened every single file on a windows 95 machine using a text editor, of all things, so clearly you have plenty of time to spare (not that anyone believes such rubbish). It wasn't simply a "claim" - it is the truth. it's bull****. Nope! first of all, your claim that every printed page is secretly being sent to hp is utter lunacy. Prove me wrong. second, your claim that opening every file on a win95 system in a text editor, of all things, was proof is even more ludicrous. It's exactly what I did. I found plain text in amongst the gobbledegook in many files I opened in this manner *which* file and *what* anomaly did you supposedly find in it that led you to believe such rubbish? It was in 2005 - I cannot recall now. (But I may still have notes) |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
On 08/05/2020 20:44, Paul wrote:
Jim H wrote: On Thu, 7 May 2020 10:57:31 +0100, in , David_B wrote: Here's a huge table from Wikipedia ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...virus_software It's well worth a look! No mention, though, of ClamXav. *Odd*. https://www.clamxav.com https://www.facebook.com/clamxav This is a list of claimed features, not an actual measure of reliable performance. It has it's uses when it comes to reducing the number of AVs to consider but I would never use this list to make a FINAL choice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clam_AntiVirus Â* "In the 2008 AV-Test, which compared ClamAV to other Â*Â* antivirus software, it rated: Â*Â* on-demand:Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* very poor; Â*Â* false positives:Â* poor; Â*Â* response time:Â*Â*Â* very good; Â*Â* rootkits:Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* very poor.[9] Â* " Sorta like the "Bud Light" of beers. "Less filling", being its major attribute. I'm sure the ClamXav developer has turned the ship around, and that version has become a great light beer. We just need someone to test it (properly). On a Macintosh, how would you do that ? Can you run Sality on a Mac ? How ??? Â*Â* Paul Is this item of any interest, Paul? https://www.pcrisk.com/removal-guide...y-trojan-virus Is the article referring to a Mac when you review the link using Windows or Linux? |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
David_B wrote:
On 08/05/2020 20:44, Paul wrote: Jim H wrote: On Thu, 7 May 2020 10:57:31 +0100, in , David_B wrote: Here's a huge table from Wikipedia ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...virus_software It's well worth a look! No mention, though, of ClamXav. *Odd*. https://www.clamxav.com https://www.facebook.com/clamxav This is a list of claimed features, not an actual measure of reliable performance. It has it's uses when it comes to reducing the number of AVs to consider but I would never use this list to make a FINAL choice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clam_AntiVirus "In the 2008 AV-Test, which compared ClamAV to other antivirus software, it rated: on-demand: very poor; false positives: poor; response time: very good; rootkits: very poor.[9] " Sorta like the "Bud Light" of beers. "Less filling", being its major attribute. I'm sure the ClamXav developer has turned the ship around, and that version has become a great light beer. We just need someone to test it (properly). On a Macintosh, how would you do that ? Can you run Sality on a Mac ? How ??? Paul Is this item of any interest, Paul? https://www.pcrisk.com/removal-guide...y-trojan-virus Is the article referring to a Mac when you review the link using Windows or Linux? I took note of that one a while back, because a discussion thread on a site like Bleepingcomputer, said it was better to nuke and pave, than to attempt to clean/repair the damage it causes. Most of the time, the AV cleanup sites will attack the worst problem, given a chance. But not that one. It's a Windows malware. It would be in the ClamAV database. It can be spread over the network. If one Windows PC gets it, in a matter of minutes, the other Windows PCs will get it (if they're powered and network connected). I don't know if any of the SMB patches cover it or not. As far as I know, that one wasn't released for commercial gain, it wasn't a money maker. It was released to damage stuff. It could be, that it modifies every EXE on the machine (modifies executables, in such a way that it's not trivial to remove it from the EXE and put the original bytes back). It would be a lot of work using a backup, to attempt to undo all of that (you have to be careful that you've covered all the file types it attacks). Especially if it was a new variant that had features added or something. The idea is, if you execute any EXE on the machine, it puts the infection back. So when booting the machine, when Explorer.exe starts, that would be enough to reinfect. We're very lucky, that so many computer problems can be trivially undone. That one is an example of how easy it is to make a royal mess. Paul |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
David_B
Mon, 11 May 2020 11:37:12 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: On 10/05/2020 23:12, Shadow wrote: On Sun, 10 May 2020 23:02:26 +0100, David_B wrote: On 10/05/2020 22:39, Your Name wrote: I wouldn't be installing an AV anyway ... like all anti-malware, it's completely pointless on a Mac. I agree. Message-ID: *LIAR* Follow the thread. He not only obtains a crack for the commercial software from a fellow crook and uses it, but worse, offers it to others. When they decline, he says he was "testing if they were honest". He'll claim he "forgot". He probably did. Alcohol in excess can do that to the brain. []'s PS: One of his stalking_target's name was altered to an AV. He tries to feed the bots with negative posts. It did not alter the meaning of the post in any way. I have no idea why you are responding to *ME*, Shadow. Are you drinking heavily, David? You appear to 'have a screw loose'. You have recently claimed that you are currently using a computer running Windows XP and have *NO* anti-virus software installed. The chances of YOU having had a rootkit installed on your machine - without your knowledge - are exceptionally high. David, you really have no experience or knowledge of the subject of any kind to make such a claim. This post refers http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158919690900 Please explain to 'Your Name' why you incessantly claim that alcohol plays a part in my posting when you know full well that I've imbibed NO alcohol since I stopped drinking completely on 21st March 2018 I seriously doubt Shadow has any better access to your inner circle than myself. And, I have seen no such confirmation from anyone that reached out to me previously about this so called, sobriety you've claimed. Two years, and I haven't heard a word about it. I don't believe you're telling any of us the truth here, as a result, David. And quit with the known to be bull**** lie of yours that I'm lying about this. You're all too quick to forget, you confirmed my statements are true, by telling me your side of a story I shouldn't know anything about. I'll also remind you that you falsely accused me of hacking one or more of your computers and stealing one or more files to learn of your drinking issues. I did no such thing, but I did ask if you kept a journal or diary or something; it's the only thing I could think of that would make you ask such a question. Your responses to my claim that I was put in contact with one or more people you actually know in real life confirmed my 'story' was true, that it wasn't a lie, or otherwise false as you've tried to claim since you ****ed up and told me your side of the story about the loss of a friendship due to your drinking problem. I couldn't possibly know anything about that, nothing at all about that, if one or more people you know personally who are familiar with the incident didn't tell me all about it, David. I've asked you several times to explain how I know things I shouldn't, but you continue to dodge that question too. Why? You told on yourself, already. If you just denied everything I'd written, and kept your mouth shut about that friendship - I'd have no way of proving any of it was true without forking over my source(s). You saved me the trouble by telling on yourself. You let your ego get the best of you, you couldn't just let what I wrote stand, YOU HAD TO TELL ME YOUR SIDE. And, heh, by doing so, you confirmed what I'd written is true. And, you also confirmed you were in damage control mode, but it was already too late. Cats out of the bag, drunkard. Mike Easter doesn't believe your sober, David. He recently asked if you'd been drinking again. You ignored him just as you have Apd, Shadow, myself, and others. No David, snits method of dealing with people isn't working. He's just as despised as you are, possibly more so. And! One reason is shared between you; you're both very well known liars. Seriously, both of you, well known for this. Snit isn't who you think he is, David. Your reputation is bad enough without aligning yourself with that learning disabled, severely compromised, hardly literate, idiot. Also, I've read some other most interesting posts from snit concerning those degrees. He at one point, denied he claimed had either of them, and someone just made the assumption. I can actually find the MIDs if you'd like to see this stuff. It is old news, several years old infact, but, quite interesting. Do you remember me telling you that for the masters degree he's supposed to have, even with the differences in the one I have, some of the material is cross over? Well, he should know/have a solid understanding of a lot more technical subject matter; especially coding than he's shown he has, here, David. There's no ****ing way he was able to acquire either degree with the demonstrated, no doubt, no question, no excuse, reading comprehension problem he has. It's a real life learning disability. You expect people to believe he earned a masters degree in information technology but couldn't follow the plain english text explanation of the AZ format? David, I assure you, any degree in information technology and/or computer science has a lot of reading material which goes along with it, not even including lab time where you put what you're learning to real world use. That material is MUCH MORE complicated than any source code I've shared here, or documentation I've shared, ever thought about being. Some of the material, despite you never actually using it in the real world (much like school) gets uber geeky, and again, I stress, requires a reading comprehension level higher than one's necessary to understand the AZ format as I described it. Even you can't deny, Snit struggled considerably more than someone with the college/university background he's supposed to have, should. If he has those degrees, someone assisted him with the work material itself. He didn't do it entirely on his own, and, that's IF he wasn't lying about having them in the first place. Several usenet posts from him seem to indicate his idea of not lying about them was to not correct others who assumed he had one or more, based on what he wrote. In my case, I've directly asked him, when I was communicating with him and he's on record for telling us he does have a Masters Degree in information technology. Which contradicts several , years old, usenet posts on the subject where he claims he has no such degrees, that he didn't say he did, that others incorrect assumed based on things he wrote. Do you see a possible issue with all of this David? Can you explain for me how Snit could have a masters degree in information technology, teach classes etc as he's claimed, yet do so badly with a very simple explanation for AZ? If that example won't suffice, can you explain why he hasn't answered you about that source code you asked for his input on? It's not like you shared the source code by accident, you did want him to take a peek and see if he could help you figure it out, right? And before snit worries or accuses me of something else, falsely, he is filtered here on this network. None of the computers on said network will show me any posts from him via my client. That being said, a couple of usenetters do seem to think it necessary that I read some of his posts, so they email me copies; but they aren't cherry picking content on me, I'm getting the entire post with headers. They might be cherry picking the posts themselves though, as they all know it annoys me when they send one, and they risk being put in the spam folder if they aren't careful. Your stupidity concerning the machine in front of you is understandable to a point, but, Snit has made various claims of being techieish in nature (if that's a new word, I call first dibs on credit) so.. I have trouble excusing a lot of what he writes, atleast that which I've had the misfortune of seeing come up on my screen. David, one more thing about snit. He's posted several times an accusation that I have the usenet flood bot source code, or a binary to it, or access to it's owner; as in, I know who's running it. I don't, and I told him that several times. I also explained how I reached my thoughts concerning how the bot is coded based on what I've seen it doing. Same as I did with his. If he really has the technical background and education he claims, David, he should be very familiar with the methods I described. Infact, he should be so familiar with them, I shouldn't have had to explain myself, and he wouldn't have accused me of anything to do with the bot code/binary wise, at all. He might have still accused me of knowing who ran it, but, not an accusation of having a copy of it in any form, simply by my diagnosing how it works from seeing it's output. That's forgive the pun, basic coding skills. And you have to have atleast basic coding ability in a variety of languages to get a masters degree. You don't get to skip that part by choosing IT over CS. You still have to do that class work too - but with IT, you only have to go over the basics. What you are taught though, should have covered what I had to explain to snit I'd done! There's several things, other than what I already described that's off about him, David. Trust him completely if you like, but, you can fact check everything I've written with other real technicians you do trust. You can also fact check my claims about his old posts, by reading a few of the threads here and cola. if you don't want to wait for me to fork them over. Or, snit could just, I dunno, be honest with everyone here concerning what they do have/don't and do/don't know. I won't hold it against them, I couldn't think much lower of them than I already do. My scale doesn't go below zero. G I've already dismissed him as a generally useless, intentionally lying, troll. Your kind of person. Pcbutts beats him only because, despite pcbutts being a code thief from hell, he actually had a general idea of what the code did that he took credit for writing when he didn't. Snit can't even reliably demonstrate that level of understanding. -- And they shall plow their swords into beach chairs. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
Ken Blake
Sun, 10 May 2020 18:52:11 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: On 5/10/2020 10:52 AM, Shadow wrote: FWIW, I haven't used a resident AV for ages.... and I'm on XP. Safe hex is the way to go with any OS. As far as I'm concerned, there are *four* ways to go, and none of them should be omitted: Safe Hex Antivirus program Antispyware program Firewall What you do is of course up to you, not me, but as far as I'm concerned, relying just on safe hex is foolhardy. There's always a chance that you will make a mistake some day when you're very tired, have had too much to drink, having just had a fight with your spouse, etc. Antivirus and antispyware programs can give you a very false sense of security and cause you to become lax or otherwise lazy in your safe hex practices. Remember, those apps can only protect you from things they're already aware of, and with limited succes, unknown varients of the same families. Those apps also introduce infection vector points for malware. And, they've been exploited to do exactly that on several occasions. They require as low level access as is possible to your system. And, as a side effect, unknown to them malware has, and will continue on occasion, to take advantage of the access rights the av/am has and go places on your machine a modern OS would have otherwise prevented with it's own security. Those same apps have been known from time to time to cause unwanted interference with the OS andor other apps on your machine as well as occasional data loss. In all cases, those apps do place a bit of a drain on your system resources, even if you don't visually notice it, your machine does. A computer isn't a toaster. If you're in a condition where driving wouldn't be safe, it's best not to be in front of your computer, power tools, electrical tools, basically anything that's not child proof that actually could harm you in some manner. -- Bad or missing mouse. Spank the cat [Y/N]? |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
Ken Blake
Mon, 11 May 2020 15:53:33 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: On 5/10/2020 2:52 PM, Shadow wrote: On Sun, 10 May 2020 11:52:11 -0700, Ken Blake wrote: On 5/10/2020 10:52 AM, Shadow wrote: FWIW, I haven't used a resident AV for ages.... and I'm on XP. Safe hex is the way to go with any OS. As far as I'm concerned, there are *four* ways to go, and none of them should be omitted: Safe Hex Antivirus program Antispyware program Firewall What you do is of course up to you, not me, but as far as I'm concerned, relying just on safe hex is foolhardy. There's always a chance that you will make a mistake some day when you're very tired, have had too much to drink, having just had a fight with your spouse, etc. A firewall is part of safe Hex To me, it's something very different. (two here, one in the router). Same here. And I scan with USB-booted AVs quite frequently. I said I don't use a resident AV. There's a big difference between the two types. Your frequent scans can detect malware that has already infected you. A resident AV can often prevent malware installation, and as far as I'm concerned, that's what makes it much better. Slight correction: It can prevent known malware from being accidently executed by you, yes. Again, I want to stress, KNOWN MALWARE. If it's not known to your av/am, it's coming in to say hello. And you've wasted resident resouces for no gain. Infact, if it's an executable infector, it could just wait for your av/am to open files to scan and infect them when it sees file handle release api call. Your av/am will open alot more files, much more frequently, and the malware doesn't even have to waste code for search routines, it can let your trusted security dog do the searching for you. What i've explained isn't theortical, or proof of concept with nothing in the wild having done it. It has been done, it continues to be done. It's a tried and true trick, infact. Works as long as your code doesn't become known to av/am. You forgot backups. No, I didn't. To me, it's also something very different. As long as I can remember, backups is part of the safe hex routine. It's not something very different. Remember: jesus saves, but only budda makes incremental backups. If you care about it, back it up. NO AV/AM or any other kind of safe hex is going to save you from hardware failure. And even in this day and age, you have a higher risk of losing data due to user error and/or hardware failure than you actually do malware. Ransomware is a fantastic example of users not following safe hex practices. If you have to pay a ransom to get your data back, you have a bad data backup policy. If ransomware was able to gain read/write access to important data, you have a policy enforcement/network configuration ****up. IE: user error. -- If "con" is the opposite of "pro", then what is the opposite of progress? |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
David_B
Mon, 11 May 2020 21:45:51 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: On 11/05/2020 16:53, Ken Blake wrote: On 5/10/2020 2:52 PM, Shadow wrote: On Sun, 10 May 2020 11:52:11 -0700, Ken Blake wrote: On 5/10/2020 10:52 AM, Shadow wrote: Â Â Â Â FWIW, I haven't used a resident AV for ages.... and I'm on XP. Â Â Â Â Safe hex is the way to go with any OS. As far as I'm concerned, there are *four* ways to go, and none of them should be omitted: Safe Hex Antivirus program Antispyware program Firewall What you do is of course up to you, not me, but as far as I'm concerned, relying just on safe hex is foolhardy. There's always a chance that you will make a mistake some day when you're very tired, have had too much to drink, having just had a fight with your spouse, etc. Â Â Â Â A firewall is part of safe Hex To me, it's something very different. (two here, one in the router). Same here. And I scan with USB-booted AVs quite frequently. I said I don't use a resident AV. There's a big difference between the two types. Your frequent scans can detect malware that has already infected you. A resident AV can often prevent malware installation, and as far as I'm concerned, that's what makes it much better. Such scans *MAY* detect malware (that which is not surrepticiously hidden!) Â Â Â Â You forgot backups. No, I didn't. To me, it's also something very different. I do daily incremental and less often full backups. I do much the same. Hardware can crash. Yes. And be stolen. No AV will protect you from that. Right. Can a drive-by download install a rootkit? Maybe. It depends on several factors. Why aren't you all over sony for the rootkit thing? They not only wrote one, they actually defended having done it! If so, such rootkit may never be discovered by a USB-booted AV Not true. Again, you don't understand (at all) what rootkit is, or means. Nobody with a modicum of common sense wiould run Windows XP with no resident AV. Anyone who does so is a danger to himself and others. Cite specific examples of XP being a danger to other systems if it's online, properly firewalled, properly locked down and used by someone who is beyond that of a power user. No scare mongering the world is coming to an end bull**** David, I want you to post facts to support your claim. In the meantime, here's a few facts for you to chew on: 1) This post was written on an XP machine that does NOT run any resident av/am of any kind. It never has. 2) I can vouch for every single file present on this machine, I know via md5 and sha hashing that no files have been tinkered with in a negative manner. This computer is clean, aside from a folder that has my old work in it. No malware of any kind is resident - And unlike some people David, you can't make the claim that malware could be hiding and I wouldn't be able to tell. I would. I've done it for a living. I use this computer every day, no infection issues. Explain, David. *NEVER CLICK ON A LINK POSTED BY SHADOW*! Why not? He hasn't posted links pointing to a known windows based executable malware. You have though, and you knew what the file was, because you told him, since he didn't use a machine that would run it, he was safe. That was so nice of you, David. What about the machines that could run it? Any word of advice for them? The url shadow shared is the truthful page warning people about your tendency to stalk. People have the right to know what they are getting themselves into when/if the opt to interact with you. You don't have any right to muzzle us so you can continue fishing for people to exploit and abuse. The site owner asked you to specify what if any inaccurate statements or claims about you are on the site; You specified ONE username as being not yours. And, that's ALL you submitted for correction. So, the rest of the material on the site about you, as has been said since you demanded it be created, IS TRUE. You just don't like being reminded of what you are, and you damn sure don't like it being a simple click away from others learning about what you are. https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php To put it blunt and short: YOU! demanded the site be brought up: 23 June 2015: An Internet Stalker named David Brooks of Devon, England has challenged me to post this picture of him. The why comes from a Usenet post ( M-ID: ) [Me] That's me... Do you want yours and Trish's picture on the front page? With a large "STALKER" banner? [David Brooks] I doubt you have the skill to do that. Prove me wrong, Shagnasty. Do it *NOW*! So, suitably instructed, I complied. On 17 November 2015, a person named Nil responded to David Brooks in a Windows newsgroup where he stalks: "You're a well-known net kook and stalker. Your fake cutesy nicey-nice facade is completely ineffective at disguising your obvious and true malignancy. You earn every rudeness you get. ... He recognizes you as the toxic cancer you are." ( M-ID: ); And heres where you threatened the site admin; On 24 July 2019, David Brooks issues a stalking threat: "I'm quite good at sussing out nasty folk like you. If that page is still there after the boating season, I'll think up some ways to make YOUR life a misery, just as you have tried to intimidate me." ( M-ID: ) If you should ever encounter David Brooks, DO NOT give him any personal information. He is an incorrigible stalker and world's greatest pest. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=david+brooks+devon&ia=web https://www.google.com/search?source...d+brooks+devon And whats with this David G Brooks? David G. Brooks - Skipper of my own narrowboat! - I am also ... uk.linkedin.com › boaterdave View David G. Brooks' profile on LinkedIn, the world's largest professional community. David G. ... Budleigh Salterton, Devon, United Kingdom68 connections. So, you spent the money from nicks life insurance on the boat, right? 68 connections huh? They should be told more about you, David. I wonder if that can be arranged... Also, why are you still keeping a copy of my copyrighted photo on your dropbox account? You don't have my permission to have it. AND, you're well aware of the fact you do NOT have my permission for any of my things. Are you going to delete it yourself, or does dropbox need to do it for you? And, you can thank the remailer for bringing it to my attention. I really forgot all about it. See, David, just another example of you not being what you claim to be. A good guy doesn't take copies of other peoples things, especially when they know for a fact already they don't have permission to make any copies, or retain any copies, or upload any copies elsewhere. The law doesn't apply to you though, right David? Everyone else must follow it, but you don't need to. You're special in that regard, right, David? -- Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe. - Albert Einstein |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
On 5/12/20 2:12 AM, Diesel wrote:
.... Mike Easter doesn't believe your sober, David. He recently asked if you'd been drinking again. You ignored him just as you have Apd, Shadow, myself, and others. No David, snits method of dealing with people isn't working. He's just as despised as you are, possibly more so. And! One reason is shared between you; you're both very well known liars. Seriously, both of you, well known for this. My method of dealing with your trolling has been at least more effective than most -- you ran off, scared. You are starting to troll me again, though you pretend to not read my posts. No difference: as you troll me I remind you of some of your past idiotic nonsense: -------------------------------------------------------- You made up a claim where I said I would decode things OTHER THAN hex, or that I could decode AZ code on my own. It is a complete and utter fantasy on your part. Either you are lying to yourself or you are lying to me. It does not matter which: either way it is not true. I made no such claim, Snit. I stated that you offered to decode other posts I wrote in HEX if I continued. Ah, so you no longer back these claims of yours: ----- You claimed that you'd decode messages I encoded, if i continued so that David could read them. Well, you thought you'd be able to, anyhow. I was just curious to see if you could do as you thought you could. And, it's pretty obvious by now, you were more than slightly bull****ting about your abilities. ----- You have yet to quote where I said what you attributed to me: that I was claiming to be able to decode ANYTHING other than hex at the time. You made up that claim... and now it is clear you know that. ------ You decoded something I wrote in hex, yes. When you read what it was, you indicated you'd just decode the rest of them for David, going so far as to write a utility to do it for him, if I continued posting in that manner, just to be a dick towards me. So, I decided to see if you could do as you claimed you could. ------ Good to see you understand I never made the claim you lied about me doing here. ------ As I suspected, you couldn't do anything with it. HEX was as far as you were going to be able to go concerning posts I didn't want David reading easily, despite your claim to the contrary. ------ And another example of this lie of yours you now accept is not true. Great! You can see your past lies were, of course, lies. Happy to see it. Keep in mind I knew you were lying the whole time about my having made such a claim. -------------------------------------------------------- Snit isn't who you think he is, David. Your reputation is bad enough without aligning yourself with that learning disabled, severely compromised, hardly literate, idiot. See: you show you are terrified of me and angry with me -- all because I do not respond to your trolling as you wish. .... -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
On 5/12/2020 2:12 AM, Diesel wrote:
Ken Blake Mon, 11 May 2020 15:53:33 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: On 5/10/2020 2:52 PM, Shadow wrote: On Sun, 10 May 2020 11:52:11 -0700, Ken Blake wrote: On 5/10/2020 10:52 AM, Shadow wrote: FWIW, I haven't used a resident AV for ages.... and I'm on XP. Safe hex is the way to go with any OS. As far as I'm concerned, there are *four* ways to go, and none of them should be omitted: Safe Hex Antivirus program Antispyware program Firewall What you do is of course up to you, not me, but as far as I'm concerned, relying just on safe hex is foolhardy. There's always a chance that you will make a mistake some day when you're very tired, have had too much to drink, having just had a fight with your spouse, etc. A firewall is part of safe Hex To me, it's something very different. (two here, one in the router). Same here. And I scan with USB-booted AVs quite frequently. I said I don't use a resident AV. There's a big difference between the two types. Your frequent scans can detect malware that has already infected you. A resident AV can often prevent malware installation, and as far as I'm concerned, that's what makes it much better. Slight correction: It can prevent known malware from being accidently executed by you, yes. Again, I want to stress, KNOWN MALWARE. Of course. No AV program is perfect. Even if it were perfect today, it wouldn't be perfect tomorrow. No AV program can reduce the probability of infection to zero. But if it can reduce it to a very low number, it's well worth having, as far as I'm concerned. If it's not known to your av/am, it's coming in to say hello. And you've wasted resident resouces for no gain. Wasted? Not to me. You've substantially reduced the risk, and that's well worth doing. Infact, if it's an executable infector, it could just wait for your av/am to open files to scan and infect them when it sees file handle release api call. Your av/am will open alot more files, much more frequently, and the malware doesn't even have to waste code for search routines, it can let your trusted security dog do the searching for you. What i've explained isn't theortical, or proof of concept with nothing in the wild having done it. It has been done, it continues to be done. It's a tried and true trick, infact. Works as long as your code doesn't become known to av/am. You forgot backups. No, I didn't. To me, it's also something very different. As long as I can remember, backups is part of the safe hex routine. It's not something very different. Remember: jesus saves, but only budda makes incremental backups. If you care about it, back it up. Of course. I didn't suggest otherwise. The only disagreement we have here is regarding the terminology. NO AV/AM or any other kind of safe hex is going to save you from hardware failure. And even in this day and age, you have a higher risk of losing data due to user error and/or hardware failure than you actually do malware. I'm not sure whether that risk is higher or not, but it's a significant enough risk that regular backup is extremely important. -- Ken |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
On 5/12/2020 2:12 AM, Diesel wrote:
Ken Blake Sun, 10 May 2020 18:52:11 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: On 5/10/2020 10:52 AM, Shadow wrote: FWIW, I haven't used a resident AV for ages.... and I'm on XP. Safe hex is the way to go with any OS. As far as I'm concerned, there are *four* ways to go, and none of them should be omitted: Safe Hex Antivirus program Antispyware program Firewall What you do is of course up to you, not me, but as far as I'm concerned, relying just on safe hex is foolhardy. There's always a chance that you will make a mistake some day when you're very tired, have had too much to drink, having just had a fight with your spouse, etc. Antivirus and antispyware programs can give you a very false sense of security and cause you to become lax or otherwise lazy in your safe hex practices. For some people (but not everyone), what you say is correct. That's why I don't recommend such software *instead* of safe hex, but in addition to it. Safe Hex still needs to be stressed. Remember, those apps can only protect you from things they're already aware of, and with limited succes, unknown varients of the same families. Of course. Those apps also introduce infection vector points for malware. And, they've been exploited to do exactly that on several occasions. They require as low level access as is possible to your system. And, as a side effect, unknown to them malware has, and will continue on occasion, to take advantage of the access rights the av/am has and go places on your machine a modern OS would have otherwise prevented with it's own security. Those same apps have been known from time to time to cause unwanted interference with the OS andor other apps on your machine as well as occasional data loss. In all cases, those apps do place a bit of a drain on your system resources, even if you don't visually notice it, your machine does. A bit? Yes. A lot? No. At least not for the better software. And the small drain is worth it for the extra protection. -- Ken |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
In article , David_B
wrote: Some Mac downloads, you can go through them with 7ZIP on Windows and examine what filetypes are in there. Which could give a hint how much "leverage" they need to do their job. That's not something I'd feel confident to explore, Paul. it's meaningless. How would YOU look for a rootkit an an Apple computer? these days, one can't be too careful, thus an sem is mandatory, ideally fortnightly or less to prevent the spread to other nearby computers, given that r0 is incalculable. False. I don't believe you know. :-( you obviously did not understand what was written. no surprise there. I've been advised that such forensic examination of a machine could take a very long time and be VERY expennsive. you claim to have opened every single file on a windows 95 machine using a text editor, of all things, so clearly you have plenty of time to spare (not that anyone believes such rubbish). It wasn't simply a "claim" - it is the truth. it's bull****. Nope! it's bull****. first of all, your claim that every printed page is secretly being sent to hp is utter lunacy. Prove me wrong. it's on you to prove it happened, which you have failed to do. what would hp want with that, anyway? do you even realise how much data that would be? second, your claim that opening every file on a win95 system in a text editor, of all things, was proof is even more ludicrous. It's exactly what I did. I found plain text in amongst the gobbledegook in many files I opened in this manner you haven't any clue what you're even looking at. 'plain text in amongst the gobbledegook' is not proof of anything, let alone a global conspiracy to obtain copies of every single printed page. i notice you changed it from every file to 'many files i opened'. were you really expecting that to slip by unnoticed? your story changes with every post. *which* file and *what* anomaly did you supposedly find in it that led you to believe such rubbish? It was in 2005 - I cannot recall now. (But I may still have notes) of course you can't recall, because it's bull****. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
On 12/05/2020 17:10, Snit wrote:
On 5/12/20 2:12 AM, Diesel wrote: ... Mike Easter doesn't believe your sober, David. He recently asked if you'd been drinking again. You ignored him just as you have Apd, Shadow, myself, and others. No David, snits method of dealing with people isn't working. He's just as despised as you are, possibly more so. And! One reason is shared between you; you're both very well known liars. Seriously, both of you, well known for this. My method of dealing with your trolling has been at least more effective than most -- you ran off, scared. You are starting to troll me again, though you pretend to not read my posts. No difference: as you troll me I remind you of some of your past idiotic nonsense: -------------------------------------------------------- You made up a claim where I said I would decode things OTHER THAN hex, or that I could decode AZ code on my own. It is a complete and utter fantasy on your part. Either you are lying to yourself or you are lying to me. It does not matter which: either way it is not true. I made no such claim, Snit. I stated that you offered to decode other posts I wrote in HEX if I continued. Ah, so you no longer back these claims of yours: Â*Â*Â* ----- Â*Â*Â* You claimed that you'd decode messages I encoded, if i Â*Â*Â* continued so that David could read them. Well, you thought Â*Â*Â* you'd be able to, anyhow. I was just curious to see if you Â*Â*Â* could do as you thought you could. And, it's pretty Â*Â*Â* obvious by now, you were more than slightly bull****ting Â*Â*Â* about your abilities. Â*Â*Â* ----- You have yet to quote where I said what you attributed to me: that I was claiming to be able to decode ANYTHING other than hex at the time. You made up that claim... and now it is clear you know that. Â*Â*Â* ------ Â*Â*Â* You decoded something I wrote in hex, yes. When you read Â*Â*Â* what it was, you indicated you'd just decode the rest of Â*Â*Â* them for David, going so far as to write a utility to do Â*Â*Â* it for him, if I continued posting in that manner, just to Â*Â*Â* be a dick towards me. So, I decided to see if you could do Â*Â*Â* as you claimed you could. Â*Â*Â* ------ Good to see you understand I never made the claim you lied about me doing here. Â*Â*Â* ------ Â*Â*Â* As I suspected, you couldn't do anything with it. HEX was Â*Â*Â* as far as you were going to be able to go concerning posts Â*Â*Â* I didn't want David reading easily, despite your claim to Â*Â*Â* the contrary. Â*Â*Â* ------ And another example of this lie of yours you now accept is not true. Great! You can see your past lies were, of course, lies. Happy to see it. Keep in mind I knew you were lying the whole time about my having made such a claim. -------------------------------------------------------- Snit isn't who you think he is, David. Your reputation is bad enough without aligning yourself with that learning disabled, severely compromised, hardly literate, idiot. See: you show you are terrified of me and angry with me -- all because I do not respond to your trolling as you wish. ... He makes claims which he cannot support. Dustin is *NOT* in contact with "my inner circle" as he claims. :-( |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
On 5/12/20 10:52 PM, David_B wrote:
On 12/05/2020 17:10, Snit wrote: On 5/12/20 2:12 AM, Diesel wrote: ... Mike Easter doesn't believe your sober, David. He recently asked if you'd been drinking again. You ignored him just as you have Apd, Shadow, myself, and others. No David, snits method of dealing with people isn't working. He's just as despised as you are, possibly more so. And! One reason is shared between you; you're both very well known liars. Seriously, both of you, well known for this. My method of dealing with your trolling has been at least more effective than most -- you ran off, scared. You are starting to troll me again, though you pretend to not read my posts. No difference: as you troll me I remind you of some of your past idiotic nonsense: -------------------------------------------------------- Â* You made up a claim where I said I would decode things Â* OTHER THAN hex, or that I could decode AZ code on my own. Â* It is a complete and utter fantasy on your part. Either you Â* are lying to yourself or you are lying to me. It does not Â* matter which: either way it is not true. Â* I made no such claim, Snit. I stated that you offered to decode other Â* posts I wrote in HEX if I continued. Ah, so you no longer back these claims of yours: Â*Â*Â*Â* ----- Â*Â*Â*Â* You claimed that you'd decode messages I encoded, if i Â*Â*Â*Â* continued so that David could read them. Well, you thought Â*Â*Â*Â* you'd be able to, anyhow. I was just curious to see if you Â*Â*Â*Â* could do as you thought you could. And, it's pretty Â*Â*Â*Â* obvious by now, you were more than slightly bull****ting Â*Â*Â*Â* about your abilities. Â*Â*Â*Â* ----- You have yet to quote where I said what you attributed to me: that I was claiming to be able to decode ANYTHING other than hex at the time. You made up that claim... and now it is clear you know that. Â*Â*Â*Â* ------ Â*Â*Â*Â* You decoded something I wrote in hex, yes. When you read Â*Â*Â*Â* what it was, you indicated you'd just decode the rest of Â*Â*Â*Â* them for David, going so far as to write a utility to do Â*Â*Â*Â* it for him, if I continued posting in that manner, just to Â*Â*Â*Â* be a dick towards me. So, I decided to see if you could do Â*Â*Â*Â* as you claimed you could. Â*Â*Â*Â* ------ Good to see you understand I never made the claim you lied about me doing here. Â*Â*Â*Â* ------ Â*Â*Â*Â* As I suspected, you couldn't do anything with it. HEX was Â*Â*Â*Â* as far as you were going to be able to go concerning posts Â*Â*Â*Â* I didn't want David reading easily, despite your claim to Â*Â*Â*Â* the contrary. Â*Â*Â*Â* ------ And another example of this lie of yours you now accept is not true. Great! You can see your past lies were, of course, lies. Happy to see it. Keep in mind I knew you were lying the whole time about my having made such a claim. -------------------------------------------------------- Snit isn't who you think he is, David. Your reputation is bad enough without aligning yourself with that learning disabled, severely compromised, hardly literate, idiot. See: you show you are terrified of me and angry with me -- all because I do not respond to your trolling as you wish. ... He makes claims which he cannot support. Dustin is *NOT* in contact with "my inner circle" as he claims. :-( He makes claims and when they are shown to be false denies he even made the claims. Of course if the claims cannot be shown to be false he is likely to just insist he is right -- even with no evidence. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
[OT]Comparison of Anti-Virus software
On Wed, 13 May 2020 23:16:51 +0100, David_B
wrote: On 12/05/2020 09:52, David_B wrote: On 07/05/2020 10:57, David_B wrote: Remember what I said about talking to yourself? Drink less. ------------------------------------- BD: I want people to "get to know me better. I have nothing to hide". I'm always here to help, this page was put up at BD's request, rather, he said "Do it *NOW*!": https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php 65 confirmed #FAKE_NYMS, most used in cybercrimes! Google "David Brooks Devon" []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of Anti-Virus software
On 13 May 2020, David_B wrote
(in article ): On 12/05/2020 17:10, Snit wrote: On 5/12/20 2:12 AM, Diesel wrote: ... Mike Easter doesn't believe your sober, David. He recently asked if you'd been drinking again. You ignored him just as you have Apd, Shadow, myself, and others. No David, snits method of dealing with people isn't working. He's just as despised as you are, possibly more so. And! One reason is shared between you; you're both very well known liars. Seriously, both of you, well known for this. My method of dealing with your trolling has been at least more effective than most -- you ran off, scared. You are starting to troll me again, though you pretend to not read my posts. No difference: as you troll me I remind you of some of your past idiotic nonsense: -------------------------------------------------------- You made up a claim where I said I would decode things OTHER THAN hex, or that I could decode AZ code on my own. It is a complete and utter fantasy on your part. Either you are lying to yourself or you are lying to me. It does not matter which: either way it is not true. I made no such claim, Snit. I stated that you offered to decode other posts I wrote in HEX if I continued. Ah, so you no longer back these claims of yours: ----- You claimed that you'd decode messages I encoded, if i continued so that David could read them. Well, you thought you'd be able to, anyhow. I was just curious to see if you could do as you thought you could. And, it's pretty obvious by now, you were more than slightly bull****ting about your abilities. ----- You have yet to quote where I said what you attributed to me: that I was claiming to be able to decode ANYTHING other than hex at the time. You made up that claim... and now it is clear you know that. ------ You decoded something I wrote in hex, yes. When you read what it was, you indicated you'd just decode the rest of them for David, going so far as to write a utility to do it for him, if I continued posting in that manner, just to be a dick towards me. So, I decided to see if you could do as you claimed you could. ------ Good to see you understand I never made the claim you lied about me doing here. ------ As I suspected, you couldn't do anything with it. HEX was as far as you were going to be able to go concerning posts I didn't want David reading easily, despite your claim to the contrary. ------ And another example of this lie of yours you now accept is not true. Great! You can see your past lies were, of course, lies. Happy to see it. Keep in mind I knew you were lying the whole time about my having made such a claim. -------------------------------------------------------- Snit isn't who you think he is, David. Your reputation is bad enough without aligning yourself with that learning disabled, severely compromised, hardly literate, idiot. See: you show you are terrified of me and angry with me -- all because I do not respond to your trolling as you wish. ... He makes claims which he cannot support. oh, the sheer irony... Dustin is *NOT* in contact with "my inner circle" as he claims. :-( I believe him. I don’t believe you. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|