Avast Doesn't Block XP Defender malware (ave.exe)
in [Spyware]
|
From: Dustin Cook on 7 Apr 2010 01:25 "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in news:hpgvsj01frb(a)news3.newsguy.com: > From: "Mike Easter" <MikeE(a)ster.invalid> > >| The Real Truth MVP wrote: >>> What part of "I was never in that accident. that's how this whole >>> thing started. I threw them a bone and they bit it and have been >>> chewing on it every since. " don't you understand? > >| What don't you understand about how -- "Sometimes I lie and >| sometimes I don't, so you can try to guess when I do or guess when I >| don't" -- doesn't work satisfactorily for part time truth-tellers or >| full-time liars. > >| There seems to be more useful evidence about who you are and who you >| aren't from others rather than you. > >| Until you provide sufficient alternative and substantiated evidence, >| then the majority are going to have to go with other sources, not >| you. > >| What you post/say here now doesn't qualify as substantiated or >| sufficient. > > The best part is when you use a Domain Registry History tool on > PCBUTTS1.Com and you see it registered to "Chris Butts" in the past. > That was prior to the accident and before he started plagiarizing > code. Thus no reason to hide. Which is also the name he used when registering his copy of malwarebytes. Which is also the name of the individual I spoke with on the phone that afternoon a few years back. Sorry Chris, you obviously are who you originally claimed to be. You just.. weren't on anybodies radar then; you hadn't done anything... rotten and stinky. -- "Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior
From: Dustin Cook on 7 Apr 2010 01:29 ~BD~ <BoaterDave(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in news:wsSdnW1_TeAo4CbWnZ2dnUVZ8k6dnZ2d(a)bt.com: > Dustin Cook wrote: > >> >> Yes.. and? That's not a crime. His website offered a tool which upon >> installation would disable malwarebytes software. A direct attack, if >> you will. At that point, his program clearly became malware and was >> treated as such. >> >> > > I do not wish to argue about this. > > Malwarebytes responded "in kind" IMO. > > A user of *either* product/tool is highly unlikely to understand what > is going on 'behind the scenes' and is putty in the hands of whichever > facility they choose to employ. > > "Bad Guys' *could* take advantage of such a situation to deposit > malware on someone's machine. The user might never become aware of > that! I understand your point of view, and I certainly realize in some situations this is possible; but.. in this case, the only way that scenario is going to go down is if pcbutts does something else with his... cobbled together stolen junk. Malwarebytes has a team of well respected individuals on staff, I really couldn't imagine the scenario happening on there end. Sorry. It's not possible for example to inject "malware" into the update process of malwarebytes, if that's what you were leaning towards. OTH, it's much more likely for pcbutts to introduce more destructive batch commands and delete something else from a persons pc. As he's done this already. -- "Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior
From: Dustin Cook on 7 Apr 2010 01:32 "The Real Truth MVP" <trt(a)void.com> wrote in news:hpgco2$a9$1(a)leythos.motzarella.org: > More lies Dustbin. My remove-it software did not start disabling MBAM > until AFTER MBAM started detecting mine deliberately and then after I > asked that it stop. Chris, The only people left who might believe you are the n00bs who don't read threads and think the internet is disneyland. You have gone out of your way it seems to me to prove beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that you *are* the thief, lying.. ugh, individual? we said you were. Your software shouldn't be "disabling" a legitimate antimalware or antivirus app in the first place. However, I do thank you for admitting to everyone that you do, indeed disable malwarebytes. Your scum Chris, plain and simple. -- "Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior
From: ~BD~ on 7 Apr 2010 02:36 The Real Truth MVP wrote: > If you are referring to that van pool accident then you should know I > was never in that accident. that's how this whole thing started. I threw > them a bone and they bit it and have been chewing on it every since. You > know I help. My tools are so famous now I don't even need to post in > these groups any more. Look how long its been since I last told anyone > to use my Remove-it software. I still average hundreds of thank you > emails everyday and my website averages 4000 hits per month. And to > answer another question that you have asked and got no reply. The reason > there are no posts from the people who they claim I stole from is > because nothing was stolen so they don't exists. Every thing those > trolls have tried to do to me has failed because they don't know who I > am. it's like the boy who cried wolf, my ISP no longer believes them. > > > Just a note to let you know that I have read your post. There is much evidence against you yet nothing I have seen which supports what you say. If I were in your position I'd want to verify my credentials in some way so there could be no doubt about matters. Until the truth is told, there will *always* be doubt. -- Dave
From: FromTheRafters on 7 Apr 2010 08:16
"~BD~" <BoaterDave(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:wsSdnW1_TeAo4CbWnZ2dnUVZ8k6dnZ2d(a)bt.com... > A user of *either* product/tool is highly unlikely to understand what > is going on 'behind the scenes' and is putty in the hands of whichever > facility they choose to employ. ....as is *always* the case. > "Bad Guys' *could* take advantage of such a situation to deposit > malware on someone's machine. The user might never become aware of > that! I look at it this way, the programmers at Malwarebytes aren't the ones that rely on stolen work. If Butts has to resort to stealing others' work, it is far more likely that that Butts would introduce errors into the resulting code. Considering Butts' apparent idea of "ethics", Butts would be more likely to introduce such 'errors' on purpose. |