A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Comparison of Anti-Virus software



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old May 11th 20, 11:49 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,uk.comp.sys.mac,alt.comp.os.windows-10
David_B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default 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  
Old May 12th 20, 09:12 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
David_B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default 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  
Old May 12th 20, 09:34 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default 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  
Old May 12th 20, 10:12 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.os.windows-10,uk.comp.sys.mac
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 344
Default 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  
Old May 12th 20, 10:12 AM posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.os.windows-10,uk.comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.system
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 344
Default 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  
Old May 12th 20, 10:12 AM posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.os.windows-10,uk.comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.system
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 344
Default 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  
Old May 12th 20, 10:12 AM posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.os.windows-10,uk.comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.system
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 344
Default 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:

    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.

    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!)

    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  
Old May 12th 20, 05:10 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.os.windows-10,uk.comp.sys.mac
Snit[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,027
Default 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  
Old May 12th 20, 05:11 PM posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.os.windows-10,uk.comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.system
Ken Blake[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 569
Default 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  
Old May 12th 20, 05:16 PM posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.os.windows-10,uk.comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.system
Ken Blake[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 569
Default 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  
Old May 12th 20, 11:17 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,uk.comp.sys.mac,alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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  
Old May 13th 20, 06:52 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.os.windows-10,uk.comp.sys.mac
David_B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default 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  
Old May 13th 20, 07:09 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.os.windows-10,uk.comp.sys.mac
Snit[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,027
Default 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  
Old May 13th 20, 11:42 PM posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.os.windows-10,uk.comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.system
Shadow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,638
Default [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  
Old May 13th 20, 11:49 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system, alt.computer.workshop, alt.comp.os.windows-10, uk.comp.sys.mac
Wolffan[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 224
Default 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
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.