Banned IP Address, Maybe Trojanss and Worms!
in [Viruses]
|
From: FromTheRafters on 20 May 2010 18:07 "David Kaye" <sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ht46sq$6da$6(a)news.eternal-september.org... > "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote: > >>Some of the detection algorithms might involve having active malware >>to >>look at. Safe mode might not have loaded some aspects of the malware, >>so >>there would be no activity to observe. I *have* seen recommendations >>to >>run it in safe mode and *then* in normal mode. > > My impression is that MBAM does not look at activity but at pieces of > code. I > have a CD with a bunch of hacking tools on it which I use in my > business. If > I happen to have the CD in a machine when I'm doing a MBAM scan, it'll > see > those tools as malware, even though they're not active. I didn't say it was *only* context scanning, I'm sure it has content scanning as well. >>....and no, I'm not employed by Malwarebytes and am looking forward to >>you getting your response from a representative. Please share with us >>whatever information they allow you to. > > Will do. Thanks.
From: dwn on 20 May 2010 21:50 On Wed, 19 May 2010 20:52:46 -0400, "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote: >The reason I asked is because spamming from your IP address is not the >same thing as spamming from your computer. Someone could possibly have >been using your wireless access point to send spam from *their* computer >using your IP address. Your detections seem to be for inactive malware - >someones post of a script snippet. To get un-banned you will have to >contact the entities that banned you. Usually, their web pages tell you >how to do this. > >That said, it is *still* a good idea to run some antimalware scanners to >be more confident that your machine is clean. > Ran the following anti virus: Avest full scan - about 2 hrs. MS Essential full scan - more than 4 hrs Stinger 1001896 - (I stopped it after 45 minute) The next day: (with both Avest and MS Essential off). First Malwarebytes - about 45 minutes. Follow by, SuperAntiSpyware - about 29 minutes Found nothing. Earlier, I received so many undelivered mails, I did not take the time to find out who is blocking my email. I will read each one carefully and contact them. I contact Surewest, (paid email server) and wildblueworld administrator neither replied. BTW, I am in a different time zone.
From: dwn on 20 May 2010 21:57 On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:09:02 GMT, sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote: >"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote: > >>If you use Wireless and it is NOT secured and you are the victim of WarDriving, >> you really >>are not that innocent as you are responsible for any/all activity on your >> subscribed IP. > >I'm not convinced of that line of reasoning at all. If it were the case, >companies such as McDonald's and Starbucks wouldn't have open wi-fi hotspots >as part of their regular business plan. It is not likely someone hijack my wireless ADSL. There are no wireless network within range from my computer, none since I moved into the neighborhood and it took more than thee weeks for my ISP to find a "PORT" for me.
From: dwn on 20 May 2010 22:03 On Wed, 19 May 2010 23:04:06 GMT, sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote: >ddwnns(a)nonet.net wrote: > >>Finally I had it up and running smoothly. All of a sudden, AOL and Comcast >>"Block" my email. A week or so later AOL, lifted the blocking. I disregard it >>but took precaution and "CC" email to my other Email. > >This usually means that your system is being used as a zombie. Get a tool >that checks all your outgoing ports and see where it's connecting. But you >need to do a thorough malware sweep. Malwarebytes can probably do it for you. >Download Malwarebytes, get the latest update, and run it in safe mode, which >I've found helps it find things better and faster. What do you mean "a zombie"? I am pretty sure I cleaned my computer other than clean installing XP PRO after format the HD. I called my ISP and I waiting for their finding.
From: Dustin Cook on 20 May 2010 22:06
sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote in news:ht35rl$gpp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > Dustin Cook <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>It's really not designed to run in safe mode; You should be using it >>in normal mode windows; so that windows loads all the drivers and >>provides all of the registry keys which are not necessarily online >>while in safe mode. > > I have followed the Malwarebytes forums for quite some time and have > never seen anything from anyone at Malwarebytes telling people not to > use it in safe mode. I welcome anybody who works for MBAM to write me > and tell me that what I'm doing in ineffective or violates any > intended purpose of the software. When I posted actively on the mbam forums, I routinely told people not to run it in safe mode, but to please use it in normal mode. It may have been under the portable version threads; as at the time, a portable version wouldn't work well. > What makes you think that MBAM will scan differently in safe mode than > in normal mode? The files that make up the registry haven't changed. > The drivers haven't changed. *shrug*. I was one of the researchers employed by MBAM. That's all. I know various things about the engine that you wouldn't be privy too. Hence, why I said what I said. > Meanwhile, I have found that MBAM works much better and faster in safe > mode when particularly nasty malware has taken over a machine simply > because Windows is not loading the extra drivers, etc., nor is bogged > down by excessive CPU use. Well, as I said, I just worked for them. What would I know.. right? -- Feel free to steal this tagline! |